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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s98CCAF74 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1A0C6575 { height:33.35pt } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8E8B00CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 23 March 2017   FIFTH SECTION Application no 73530/11 Alikram JAHANGIROV and Others against Azerbaijan and 12 other applications (see list appended) STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicants are Azerbaijani nationals. They were born on various dates and live in various cities. They are represented before the Court by various lawyers practicing in Azerbaijan (see Appendix for all details). The circumstances of the cases The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be briefly summarised as follows. On various dates between 2008 and 2012 various state authorities expropriated the applicants’ houses, flats, non-residential properties and/or plots of land (“the properties”), on the basis of orders issued by them or without any orders, for various purposes (see Appendix). By way of compensation for the expropriated properties, some applicants were paid certain amount of money, some were provided with other properties. Some of the applicants were not granted any compensation at all (see Appendix). On various dates the applicants lodged a complaint with the Baku Administrative-Economic Court No. 1, the Baku Administrative-Economic Court No. 2, the Sabail District Court, the Gobustan District Court or the Salyan District Court. They complained of breaches of their property rights, in particular that the expropriation of the properties had not been carried out in accordance with the law. They also complained that the compensation offered or already provided by the State authorities had been unfair and inadequate, arguing that the actual market prices of their properties had been much higher or asking for monetary compensation instead of alternative properties. In support of their complaints, some of the applicants submitted expert opinions regarding the market prices of their properties. In some cases the courts ordered expert reports regarding the values of the properties. The applicants asked for the return or restoration of their properties or fair compensation. Some of the applicants also lodged claims in respect of pecuniary damage, including lost profit, and non-pecuniary damage for their suffering as a result of the expropriation. In respect of applications nos. 17894/13, 65356/13, 45751/14, 52999/14, 60545/14, 6250/15 and 7637/15, on various dates (see Appendix), the relevant first-instance courts dismissed the applicants’ complaints in full, finding that their properties had been expropriated in accordance with the law and the amount of compensation had been adequate. In respect of applications nos. 73530/11, 73533/11, 65895/13, 11431/15, 15435/14 and 15905/15, on various dates (see Appendix), the relevant first ‑ instance courts partly upheld the applicants’ complaints, ordering the State authorities to pay a certain amount of money or to provide a similar property as compensation (see Appendix). On various dates the applicants lodged appeals against the respective decisions of the first-instance courts with the Baku Court of Appeal, the Sumgayit Court of Appeal or the Shirvan Court of Appeal reiterating their complaints. On various dates (see Appendix) the appellate courts dismissed or partly upheld the applicants’ appeals, largely reiterating the first-instance courts’ reasoning. On various dates the applicants lodged appeals with the Supreme Court, reiterating their complaints. On various dates (see Appendix) the Supreme Court dismissed or partly upheld the applicants’ appeals, largely reiterating the respective appeal court’s reasoning. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the civil proceedings instituted by them in connection with the expropriation and demolition of their properties were not fair, in particular that the domestic courts delivered unreasoned judgments by failing to properly verify the compliance of the interference and of the determination of the compensation with the applicable domestic legislation. 2.     The applicant in application no. 15905/15 also complains under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention that its right to a trial within a reasonable time was breached. 3.     The applicants in applications nos. 52999/14, 6250/15 and 7637/15 complain, under Article 8 of the Convention, that the unlawful expropriation of their properties and/or their unlawful eviction amounted to a violation of their right to respect for their homes. 4.     The applicants complain that the expropriation of their properties amounted to an unlawful and unjustified interference with their property rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. They further complain that the amount of compensation paid for the properties was unfair and inadequate. COMMON QUESTION 1.     Were the applicants deprived of their 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, were the amounts of compensation paid to the applicants fair and adequate in terms of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? In particular, how was that deprivation classified under domestic law (expropriation, nationalisation, confiscation, or other)? What deed (document or physical action of a public authority) constituted the interference in the present cases? What was the law applicable to the relevant form of deprivation of property? What were the substantive and procedural conditions required by the applicable law for the relevant form of deprivation of property to be lawful, and were those conditions complied with in the present cases? What was the legal basis for the acts and decisions of the relevant state authorities in the present cases, and did those authorities have competence under domestic law to take decisions resulting in the deprivation of privately-owned property, as in the present cases? If the interference was lawful, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants (see, mutatis mutandis, Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no.   22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V)? CASE-SPECIFIC QUESTIONS 1.     In respect of applications nos. 65895/13, 15435/14, 45751/14, 52999/14, 60545/14, 6250/15, 7637/15 and 11431/15: Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations in the proceedings concerning the violation of their property rights, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicants’ right to a reasoned judgment respected?   2.     In respect of application no. 15905/15: Was the length of the civil proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   3.     In respect of applications nos. 52999/14, 6250/15 and 7637/15: Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the demolition of their properties and their eviction from them by the executive authorities? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?   4.     In respect of application no. 7637/15: Were the applicants’ expropriated houses “possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?   5.     In respect of applications nos. 45741/14, 7637/15, 11431/15 and   15905/15: Were the plots of land underneath and/or attached to the applicants’ properties “possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, what were their sizes? Were the applicants paid any compensation for the land underneath and/or attached to their properties?   6.     In respect of applications no. 45741/14, 60545/14, 11431/15 and   15905/15: What were the sizes of the applicants’ expropriated properties?   7.     In respect of applications nos. 7637/15 and 11431/15: Who demolished the applicants’ properties?   8.     In respect of applications nos. 45741/14 and 7637/15: What was the total amount of compensation received by the applicants?   9.     The parties are requested to provide, where relevant and available, necessary documentary evidence in support of their replies and submissions. APPENDIX No Appli-cation no. Lodged on Applicant’s name date of birth place of residence Represented by Expropriating State authority Legal basis Purpose of the expropriation Expropriated property Compensation given initially (I) by court decision (CD) Domestic courts’ judgments/decisions   1 73530/11* 09/11/2011 Alikram JAHANGIROV Gobustan Sakhavat JAHANGIROV Gobustan Ismi JAHANGIROV Gobustan Aygun JAHANGIROVA Gobustan Aziza JAHANGIROVA Gobustan (DOBs not specified) Elchin SADIGOV Several decisions of Gobustan municipality and Gobustan District Executive Authority   Plot of land in Gobustan district I: No compensation CD: Another plot of land Gobustan District Court, 03/12/2008 Sumgayit Court of Appeal, 27/12/2010 Supreme Court, 11/05/2011 2 73533/11* 09/11/2011 Tofig ABDULLAYEV Gobustan Namig ALKISHIYEV Gobustan Leyla NOVRUZOVA Gobustan Gizilli SULEYMANOVA Gobustan Elman MAMMADOV Gobustan Mirali SHIKHALIYEV Gobustan (DOBs not specified) Elchin SADIGOV Several decisions of Gobustan municipality and Gobustan District Executive Authority   Plots of land in Gobustan district I: No compensation CD: Other plots of land Gobustan District Court, 03/12/2008 Sumgayit Court of Appeal, 27/12/2010 Supreme Court, 10/05/2011 3 17894/13 07/02/2013 Akbar GASIMOV 1965 Salyan Fariz NAMAZLI   Azeryolservis OJSC Act of 16 June 2009 of the Commission established by the head of the Salyan District Executive Authority Purpose: Construction of Baku-Astara highway. Plot of land in Salyan district I: AZN 2,354.4   Salyan District Court, 06/04/2011 Shirvan Court of Appeal, 12/04/2012 Supreme Court, 07/08/2012 4 65356/13 04/10/2013 Shahin SULEYMANOV 1961 Salyan Fariz NAMAZLI Azeryolservis OJSC Act of 16 June 2009 of the Commission established by the head of the Salyan District Executive Authority Purpose: reconstruction of Baku-Astara highway. Plot of land in Salyan district I: AZN 410.4   Salyan District Court, 06/04/2011 Shirvan Court of Appeal, 18/10/2012 Supreme Court, 04/04/2013 5 65895/13 07/10/2013 Bahadur IBRAHIMOV 1961 Baku   No representative Azeryolservis OJSC Presidential order of 08/07/2008 no 2930 Purpose: reconstruction of Baku-Alat highway. Non-residential property in Sabail square I: AZN 28,080 CD: AZN 19,770 (in addition to I) Sabail District Court, 28/09/2012 Baku Court of Appeal, 03/04/2013 Supreme Court, 02/07/2013   6 15435/14* 28/11/2013 Kaspi-Merkuri Firm Mukhtar MUSTAFAYEV Commission led by the deputy head of the Nasimi District Executive Authority Act of 22/11/2007 Purpose: improvement of transport system Plot of land in Baku (near 3 rd microdistrict circle) and a non-residential property I: No compensation CD: AZN 784,700 Baku Administrative-Economic Court No. 1, 06/10/2011 Baku Court of Appeal, 11/12/2012 Supreme Court, 20/06/2013 7 45751/14 20/05/2014 Rafiga AFANDIYEVA 1941 Baku No representative Presidential order of 18/03/2011 Baku City Executive Authority Order of 26/04/2011 no 199 Purpose: construction of B-3 metro station 3 rd Alatava street, house no. 64   I: AZN 141,401   Baku Administrative-Economic Court No. 1, 08/05/2013 Baku Court of Appeal, 30/07/2013 Supreme Court, 13/12/2013 8 52999/14* 07/07/2014 Fuad ZAKIYEV 1949 Baku Shafa JAMALZADE   Baku City Executive Authority Order of 17/07/2009 no. 279 Narimanov District Executive Authority Order of 21/07/2009 no. 254 Purpose: landscaping for Heydar Aliyev Centre H. Aliyev avenue 73/3 apt. no. 17 I: a new flat   Baku Administrative-Economic Court No. 1, 12/03/2013 Baku Court of Appeal, 31/07/2013 Supreme Court, 5/12/2013 (served on 08/01/2014) 9 60545/14* 25/08/2014 Malik KARIMOV 1960 Baku Yashar AGAZADEH Baku City Executive Authority Order of 26/04/2011 no. 199 Purpose: construction of B-3 metro station 3 rd Alatava street, house no. 6 V I: AZN 51,942   Baku Administrative-Economic Court No. 1, 07/08/2013 Baku Court of Appeal, 12/11/2013 Supreme Court, 27/02/2014 10 6250/15 19/01/2015 Mammadaga SAMADOV 1944 Baku No representative Sabail District Executive Authority Notice of 12/04/2012 Purpose: landscaping/renovation of the Buruq street Buruq street 32, apt. no. 2 I: AZN 21,378   Baku Administrative-Economic Court No. 2, 17/09/2013 Baku Court of Appeal, 18/02/2014 Supreme Court, 17/09/2014 11 7637/15 29/01/2015 Dilara NAJAFOVA 1958 Baku Shafa JAMALZADE Sabail District Executive Authority Notice of 12/04/2012 Purpose: landscaping/renovation of the Buruq street Buruq street, house no. 7   I: AZN 66,175   Baku Administrative-Economic Court No. 1, 16/10/2012 Baku Court of Appeal, 08/01/2014 Supreme Court, 19/06/2014 (served on 07/08/2014) 12 11431/15 27/02/2015 Suraya AYVAZOVA 1956 Baku Agaveys SHAHVERDI Narimanov District Executive Authority Purpose: removal of obstacles for the administrative building M. Senani, house no. 21 and attached land I: No compensation CD: AZN 36,000 Baku Administrative-Economic Court No. 2, 15/01/2014 Baku Court of Appeal, 17/07/2014 Supreme Court, 06/11/2014 13 15905/15* 24/03/2015 Merkuriy-R Ltd Famil MAMMADOV Presidential order of 01/02/2006 no. 1255 Purpose: improvement of transport system Plot of land in Baku (near Azizbeyov metro station) and a non-residential property I: No compensation CD: AZN 1,431,000 Baku Administrative-Economic Court No. 2, 01/07/2011 Baku Court of Appeal, 14/03/2014 Supreme Court, 24/09/2014