CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 mai 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 5 June 2023   FIRST SECTION Application no. 22824/21 Idris Axunbala oglu AKHUNDOV against Azerbaijan lodged on 26 April 2021 communicated on 15 May 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant, a former police officer with twenty-six years of service, was granted an old-age pension starting from 8 May 2016. On 31 October 2017 payment of the pension was suspended due to the fact that the applicant had allegedly been granted political asylum in Germany. The applicant brought proceedings against the State Social Protection Fund contesting the suspension of his pension payment. By a final judgment of 27 October 2010 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant complains that he was deprived of his possessions on account of the domestic authorities’ decision to suspend his pension. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES 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 in the public interest and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of that provision? Did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (compare Klein v. Austria , no. 57028/00, § 57, 3 March 2011)?