CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 mars 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 26 March 2018   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 45341/16 Rahila GASIMOVA against Azerbaijan lodged on 26 July 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the refusal by the State authorities to provide the applicant with pension, which she was allegedly entitled to in accordance with Articles 7 and 21.2.4 of the Law on Labour Pensions of the Republic of Azerbaijan dated 7 February 2006. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? In particular, did the applicant have a legitimate expectation to the pension in question in accordance with Articles   7 and 21.2.4 of the Law on Labour Pensions of the Republic of Azerbaijan dated 7 February 2006? If so, has the applicant 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? If the interference complained of was lawful, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see, mutatis mutandis, Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy , [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999‑V)?   2.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations in the proceedings concerning the alleged violation of her property rights, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s right to a reasoned judgment respected?