CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 janvier 2018

.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 } .sFF80D40E { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center }   Communicated on 8 January 2018   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 59117/09 Azer MAMMADOV against Azerbaijan lodged on 27 October 2009 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Azer Mammadov, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1962 and lives in Baku. He is represented before the Court by Ms   A.   Mammadova, a lawyer practising in Baku. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 28 September 1990 Baku City Council of People’s Deputies issued a decision allowing the construction of private houses in certain areas of Ramana. On 12 June 1992 the head of the Sabunchu District Executive Authority issued a decision on the allocation of a plot of land in Ramana to the applicant for the purpose of construction of a house on the basis of the above-mentioned decision. Sometime in 1992 the applicant’s brother built a house on the plot of land in question and has lived there with his family since that time. On 16 July 1996 the Law on Land Reform was enacted. Under its Article   9 the applicant was entitled to privatise the plot of land in question. On an unspecified date in 2007 the applicant applied to the State Land and Cartography Committee (“the SLCC”) for the cadastral plan of the land, a document required for privatisation of the plot of land. On 12 April 2007 the SLCC refused to issue the cadastral plan, stating that the plot of land was within an oil well protection zone. On an unspecified date in 2007 the applicant lodged a claim with the Sabunchu District Court against the SLCC, asking the court to oblige the SLCC to issue the cadastral plan. On 15 February 2008 the Sabunchu District Court upheld the applicant’s claim, finding that for many years there had not been any oil exploitation activities in that area and, therefore, there had not been any protection zone. The court further found that the oil well in question had long been inactive and that some of the neighbouring plots of land had already been privatised without any objection by the State authorities. The SLCC appealed. The State Oil Company of the Azerbaijan Republic (“SOCAR”) joined the proceedings as a third party. On 31 October 2008 the Baku Court of Appeal quashed the first-instance court’s judgment and dismissed the applicant’s claim, finding that the plot of land was within the protection zone of an oil well. The court referred to Rule 6.11 of the Rules of 1986 (known as VNTP 3-85), approved by Order of the Oil Ministry of Azerbaijan (apparently referring to the Ministry of the Petroleum Industry of the former USSR, as there was no such ministry in Azerbaijan at that time), prohibiting the construction of buildings or other installations within 25 metres of an inactive oil well. The court further found that the applicant had failed to obtain permission from SOCAR for the privatisation of the plot of land, referring to Rule 6.1 of the Rules on the determination of protection zones of exploited oil export pipelines approved by Decision of the Cabinet of Ministers dated 2 October 2004, which prohibited construction within the protection zone of a pipeline without the permission of the Ministry of Energy. On 20 May 2009 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention of the, according to him, unlawful and unjustified refusal by the SLCC to issue him a cadastral plan in respect of the plot of land allocated to him by the State authorities fifteen years earlier, which was required for the privatisation of that plot of land. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1? If so, was that interference subject to the conditions provided for by law and necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest?   2.     In particular, was the SLCC’s refusal to issue a cadastral plan lawful? What was the exact legal basis for such refusal?   3.     Were the Rules of 1986 (VNTP 3-85) applicable to the plot of land in question at the time of its allocation to the applicant? Were they legally binding on the State authority allocating the plot of land to the applicant? Did Rule 6.11 prohibit the construction of a house within 25   metres of an inactive oil well?   4.     Were the Rules of 2004 applicable to the plot of land in question at the time when it was allocated to the applicant? Were they applicable to inactive oil wells and did they require SOCAR’s permission for privatisation of a plot of land?   5.     Was the applicant’s plot of land located within the protection zone of an oil well? If so, when and on the basis of which legal document was that protection zone established? When did that oil well become inactive? Had any oil exploitation activities been carried out in the respective area since 1992? Had any of the other plots of land bordering the plot of land in question been privatised?