CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 mars 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }   Communicated on 23 March 2017   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 51424/08 Sugra GULIYEVA against Azerbaijan lodged on 18 October 2008 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Ms Sugra Guliyeva, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1956 and lives in Absheron. She is represented before the Court by Mr G. Jannatov, a lawyer practising in Azerbaijan. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 24 October 2004 the Saray Municipality (“the Municipality”) agreed to sell her a plot of land measuring 0.3 hectares. Sometime during 2005 she built an agricultural production facility with an area of 200 sq. m. and a house with an area of 80 sq. m. (“the buildings”) without a construction permit or other authorisation. She did not have legal title to the buildings. On 10 February 2006 the applicant and the Municipality signed a purchase deed in respect of the plot of land confirming that she had paid the purchase price in full. On 13 March 2006 the applicant was issued a certificate of ownership specifying that the plot of land had to be used for the production of agricultural products. On 12 July 2006 the Absheron District Agrarian Reform Commission (“the ADARC”) issued decision no. 72, which stated that plots of land located in the prohibition zone of military unit N. were to be expropriated and allocated to the Ministry of National Security (“the MNS”) for permanent use. The applicant’s land was located in that zone. The decision also stated that other plots of land had to be given to the owners as compensation for those that had been expropriated. On unspecified dates in 2006 the plot of land in question was fenced with barbed wire, allegedly by the MNS. Afterwards it was protected by soldiers and the applicant could not gain access. On 16 August 2006 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Absheron District Court against the Municipality and the MNS. She complained that her property rights had been breached arguing that that the expropriation had been unlawful as the ADARC had not been competent to expropriate her property. She also asked for compensation of AZN 178,000 for the expropriated land and buildings, and recognition of her property rights to the buildings. She further stated that if she was granted another plot of land of the same size and quality, she would reduce the amount of her compensation claim to AZN 118,000.   On 6 October 2006 the Municipality lodged a counterclaim with the Absheron District Court, asking for expropriation of the land in exchange for another plot of land of the same size and demolition of the unlawful buildings. On an unspecified date the applicant challenged the impartiality of the judges of the Absheron District Court dealing with her case, indicating that the court had not examined her claims for a long time. On 9 February 2007 the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Azerbaijan transferred the case to the Yasamal District Court. On 14 May 2007, owing to an increase in market prices, the applicant changed the amount of her compensation claim to AZN 90,825 for the land and AZN 118,000 for the buildings, making AZN 208,825 in total. On 18 June 2007 the Yasamal District Court dismissed the applicant’s claims and accepted the Municipality’s counterclaims, finding that the expropriation of the plot of land was lawful and ordering the Municipality to give the applicant another plot of land of the same size as compensation. With regard to the buildings on the plot of land, the court held that they had been unlawfully built without a construction permit or other authorisation and thus she did not have property rights to them and could not demand compensation for them. On 22 November 2007 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the judgment and specified the location of the plot of land to be given to her. On 22   April   2008 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the civil proceedings instituted by her in connection with the expropriation of her property were not fair, in particular because the domestic courts delivered unreasoned judgments by failing to properly verify that the interference complied with the applicable domestic legislation.   2.     The applicant also complains that the expropriation of her property amounted to an unlawful and unjustified interference with her property rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and that the compensation offered to her was unlawful and unfair. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations in the proceedings concerning the violation of her property rights, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic courts examine the arguments put forward by her and were the judgments of the domestic courts properly reasoned?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? Has she been deprived of her possessions in the public interest, and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? Moreover, was the compensation offered to her lawful, fair and adequate in terms of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?   3.     Were the buildings located on the applicant’s plot of land “possessions”, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? When exactly were the buildings constructed? Were the buildings connected to the utilities and, if so, when and by which authorities? Was a postal address assigned to the buildings and, if so, when and by which authority? Was the applicant registered as living at the house and, if so, when and by which authority? When did the State authorities first become aware that the buildings existed? What was the legal status of the land on which the buildings were located at the time of their construction and the expropriation?   4.     The parties are requested to provide, where relevant and available, necessary documentary evidence in support of their replies and submissions.