CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 décembre 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s1AFD43EC { width:82%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sCF8C1C59 { width:13.28%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sDD52E33C { width:43.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s65D2757 { width:13.28%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s74DC3D21 { margin-left:33.01pt; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .s3A8C67E6 { width:43.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   Communicated on 14 December 2017   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 42858/11 ALIYEVLER against Azerbaijan lodged on 14 July 2011 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicants are Azerbaijani nationals who live in Baku. Their particulars are set out in the Appendix. The first two applicants are spouses. The third, fourth and fifth applicants are their children. They are represented before the Court by Mr S. Bagirov and Mr N. Heydarov, lawyers practising in Azerbaijan. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. The first applicant is a retired military officer. He had served in the army from 1973 to 1992. On 25 September 1984 he was granted an occupancy voucher to a flat in the military settlement in Nakhchivan (“the flat”) and lived there with the other applicants, his family members, since that time. On 4 September 2003 the applicant was registered in Arafsa village at his brother’s address, but did not move there and continued to live in the flat. On 17 May 2010 the applicant was again registered at the flat. On the same day the Nakhchivan District Unit for Exploitation of Accommodation under the Ministry of Defence lodged a claim with the Nakhchivan City Court asking for termination of the applicants’ passport registration to the flat and their eviction from the flat arguing that there was a need for housing of new military officers and that the first applicant had a house in Arafsa. On 23 June 2010 the Nakhchivan City Court granted the claim finding that the first applicant had been registered in Arafsa and thus he had moved out of the flat to a new permanent place of residence in Arafsa, according to Article 60 of the 1982 Housing Code, effective at the material time. The court further found that the first applicant had a plot of land in Arafsa. The applicants appealed arguing that Article 60 of the 1982 Housing Code had not been applicable to their case as they had never moved out of the flat. They further argued that they had not had any other place to live and as the first applicant had served in the army for more than ten years, he could not have been evicted from the flat without being provided with another living space in accordance with Article 105 of the 1982 Housing Code. On 7 September 2010 the Supreme Court of the Nakchivan Autonomous Republic (acting as the appellate court) upheld the judgment without providing any reasoning. On 6 January 2011 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment reiterating the first-instance court’s reasoning. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicants complain that their eviction from the State-owned flat was unlawful and unjustified and amounted to violation of their property rights (right to reside in and to use the flat in question) guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. 2.     The applicants complain under Article 8 of the Convention that as a result of the allegedly unlawful eviction they lost their home. 3.     The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the civil proceedings were not fair; in particular that the domestic courts delivered unreasoned judgments. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was there an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2? Was the decision-making process of the domestic courts such as to afford due respect to the applicants’ interests as protected under Article 8 of the Convention? 2.     Did the applicants’ right to reside in and to use the State-owned flat constitute their “possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 to the Convention? If so, 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? In particular, did that deprivation impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants?   3.     Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicants’ right to a reasoned judgment respected?     Appendix     No. Applicant name Birth year   Hasanali ALIYEV 1952   Rukhsara ALIYEVA 1956   Anar ALIYEV 1975   Emin ALIYEV 1977   Ramzi ALIYEV 1983