CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 10 février 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s819344C9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB00DFE03 { width:22.87pt; display:inline-block } .sF5553F6A { width:108.07pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 36510/15 Rafail TAGIYEV against Azerbaijan The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 10   February 2026 as a Committee composed of:   Canòlic Mingorance Cairat , President ,   Lətif Hüseynov,   Vasilka Sancin , judges , and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no. 36510/15) against the Republic of Azerbaijan lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 22 July 2015 by an Azerbaijani national, Mr Rafail Ibrahim oglu Tagiyev ( Rafail İbrahim oğlu Tağıyev – “the applicant”), who was born in 1963 and lives in Ganja, and was represented by Mr M. Mustafayev, a lawyer based in Azerbaijan; the decision to give notice of the application to the Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr   Ç.   Əsgərov; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The present case concerns the allegedly unlawful demolition of the applicant’s properties and the alleged unfairness of the related civil proceedings. 2.     On 1 March 1996 the Ganja City Executive Authority (“the GCEA”) and the applicant entered into a contract under which the GCEA undertook to construct commercial buildings while the applicant agreed to pay 2,500,000   old Azerbaijani manats (AZM; equivalent to 500 new Azerbaijani manats (AZN)). 3.     On 14 March 1996 the GCEA issued an order allocating commercial building no. 26, located on T. Arani Street in Ganja city, to the applicant. On 19   November 1997 the Kapaz District Executive Authority issued an order allocating commercial buildings nos. 49 and 50, located at the same address, to the applicant. 4.     Subsequently, on an unspecified date two technical passports were issued to the applicant in respect of the above-mentioned properties. 5.     The applicant stated that in 2011 the GCEA had demolished those properties without any prior notice or documentation. 6.     On 5 June 2014 the applicant brought an action in the Ganja Administrative-Economic Court against the GCEA, arguing that he had been unlawfully deprived of his property and claiming compensation in the amount of AZN 800,000 for the demolition of the properties and AZN 400,000 for lost profits, as he had been running a business in those properties. 7.     By a judgment of 21 August 2014 the Ganja Administrative-Economic Court dismissed the applicant’s claim, holding that the applicant had no registered ownership rights over the properties in question and that the applicant had failed to provide any evidence in support of his allegation that the properties had been demolished by the respondent. 8.     The applicant appealed, arguing mainly that they had constituted his “possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, as the executive authorities had issued orders and technical passports in respect of those properties. He further argued that the lack of prior notice and documentation had made it impossible to obtain evidence of the demolition. 9 .     On 30 October 2014 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s judgment, endorsing its reasoning and adding that the technical passports lacked the necessary stamps from the State authority dealing with registration of property rights at the relevant time and, therefore, could not be accepted as reliable evidence. That judgment was subsequently upheld on 14   January 2015 by the Supreme Court. The judgment of the Supreme Court was served on the applicant on 24 February 2015. 10.     The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that he had been unlawfully deprived of his property without any compensation and that the domestic courts’ decisions in that regard had not been reasoned. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT 11.     The Court, being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, will examine the complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention only (see, for a similar approach, Orujova v. Azerbaijan [Committee] (dec.), no. 1776/09, § 49, 17 June 2021, and Asadov v. Azerbaijan [Committee] (dec.), nos. 64762/09 and 54136/12, § 21, 8 September 2022). 12.     The Government argued that the properties in question had not constituted the applicant’s “possessions” because the applicant had neither registered nor attempted to register his right over the properties. They further argued that the domestic courts had not accepted the technical passports as reliable evidence, given the absence of the requisite stamps on them. The applicant argued that he had had a “legitimate expectation” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of the properties. He submitted that the documents in his possession had entitled him to register his ownership right over the properties in question. 13.     The Court’s case-law on the concept of “possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention has been summarised in Akhverdiyev v. Azerbaijan (no. 76254/11, § 73, 29 January 2015) and Aliyeva and Others v. Azerbaijan (nos. 66249/16 and 6 others, §§   102-04, 21 September 2021). 14.     It is clear from the case file, and has not been disputed by the parties, that the applicant never formally registered his right over any of the properties in question (compare Afandiyeva v. Azerbaijan [Committee] (dec.), no.   45751/14, § 14, 21 January 2025). Consequently, the properties were not formally in his “private ownership” within the meaning of domestic law (contrast Rahimov v. Azerbaijan [Committee] (dec.), no. 40026/09, § 18, 7   July 2022). 15.     As to the applicant’s argument that he had a “legitimate expectation” to ownership of the properties, the Court notes that a person holding a “technical passport” in respect of a building could apply to have his or her ownership right over that building recorded in a register of immovable property, provided that all the other documents submitted at the same time were also in order ( see   Aykhan Akhundov v. Azerbaijan , no. 43467/06, § 99, 1 June 2023). The applicant did not demonstrate that he had lodged an application with the relevant authorities to register his ownership rights over the properties, nor did he provide any explanation for his failure to do so (compare Guliyeva v. Azerbaijan [Committee], no. 51424/08, § 46, 23   September 2021, and Afandiyeva , cited above, § 14). 16.     The Court further observes that, in the present case, the domestic courts found that the technical passports relied on by the applicant lacked the necessary stamps and did not accept them as reliable evidence (see paragraph   9 above). 17.     In such circumstances, and in the absence of any substantiated arguments, it cannot be established that the properties in question constituted the applicant’s “possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention. 18.     It follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 12 March 2026.     Olga Chernishova   Canòlic Mingorance Cairat   Deputy Registrar   President