CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 mai 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }   Communicated on 16 May 2017   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 43152/10 Kamran SAHIBOV against Azerbaijan lodged on 22 July 2010 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Kamran Sahibov, is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1963 and lives in Baku. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant was involved in a dispute with the Department of Administration and Privatization of State Property of the Ministry of Economic Development ( İqtisadi İnkişaf Nazirliyi Dövlət Əmlakının İdarə Olunması və Özəlləşdirilməsi Departamenti ) (“the Ministry”) concerning use of non-residential premises on the basis of a lease agreement ( icarə müqaviləsi ) concluded with the Ministry. In particular, while the Ministry lodged a claim against the applicant, seeking termination of the lease agreement, payment of the debt and the applicant’s eviction from the disputed property, the applicant lodged a counter-claim, seeking extension of the lease agreement and actual delivery of the property in dispute at his disposal. Following a series of proceedings, on 29 March 2004 Local Economic Court No. 1 partially upheld the Ministry’s claim in part concerning payment of debt and ordered the applicant to pay a certain amount of money to the Ministry. The court also partially upheld the applicant’s counter-claim, ordering the Ministry to extend the lease agreement in respect of the part of the property of 134 sq. m and to put it at the applicant’s disposal. No appeals were lodged against that judgment and, pursuant to the domestic law, it became final and enforceable within one month of its delivery. On an unspecified date in 2009 Azerbaijan State Caspian Shipping Company ( Azərbaycan Dövlət Xəzər Dəniz Gəmiçiliyi ) (“the Company”) lodged an appeal against the judgment of 29 March 2004 and requested the renewal of the time-limit for an ordinary appeal. The Company argued that its procedural rights had been violated because it had not been informed of the above-mentioned proceedings. The Company alleged that, as a statutory holder of the property in dispute, it should have been informed of the proceedings and asked for the quashing of the judgment of 29 March 2004. On 19 October 2009 the Baku Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 29 March 2004 and ordered the termination of the lease agreement and the applicant’s eviction from the property in dispute. According to the appellate court’s judgment, the applicant was informed of the date and place of the hearing, but failed to participate in it. The applicant appealed against that judgment, claiming that the quashing of the judgment of 29 March 2004 five years after it became final and enforceable had violated his right to a fair hearing. On 3 February 2010 the Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s judgment. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the quashing of the judgment of 29 March 2004 after a considerable lapse of time violated his right to a fair hearing. He further complains that his right to a fair trial was breached because he was not duly informed of the date and place of the hearing before the Baku Court of Appeal which was held in his absence. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was there a breach of the applicant’s right to a fair hearing, as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, as a result of the renewal of the time-limit for lodging an appeal by Azerbaijan State Caspian Shipping Company, more than five years and six months after the judgment of 29   March 2004 had become final and binding, and of the consequent quashing by the higher courts of that judgment in the applicant’s favour?   2.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of equality of arms respected as regards the hearing before the Baku Court of Appeal? Were the applicant and his lawyer duly notified about the hearing of the Baku Court of Appeal?   3.     The Government are requested to submit copies of all the court decisions relating to the domestic proceedings.