THIRD SECTION
CASE OF UMID-T LLC v. AZERBAIJAN
(Application no. 7949/13)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
29 April 2025
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of UMID-T LLC v. Azerbaijan,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Darian Pavli, President,
 Lətif Hüseynov,
 Úna Ní Raifeartaigh, judges,
and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 7949/13) against the Republic of Azerbaijan lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 4 February 2013 by Umid-T LLC (“the applicant company”), a company registered in Baku, which was represented by Mr M. Mustafayev, a lawyer based in Azerbaijan;
the decision to give notice of the complaints under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention to the Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Əsgərov, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 25 March 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns the allegedly unlawful expropriation of commercial property belonging to the applicant company, namely an LPG (liquefied petroleum gas) filling station, for the purpose of reconstructing a motorway connecting the country’s international airport to the outskirts of Baku. 2. A certificate of ownership issued in 2005 showed the applicant company as the owner of an LPG filling station located adjacent to the Heydar Aliyev Airport–Mardakan–Bilgah motorway. It was situated on an 800 sq. m plot of land which had been allocated to the company specifically for that purpose. The land itself remained in State ownership. 3. On 28 August 2009 the Cabinet of Ministers issued a decision on the expropriation of land, together with any immovable property located on it, for State needs in connection with the reconstruction of the motorway. Under this decision the AzerYolServis Open Joint Stock Company (“OJSC”), which was owned by the State and operated by the Ministry of Transport, was designated as the authorised State body responsible for expropriation. On 25 September 2009 the AzerYolServis OJSC sent the applicant company written notification informing it of the impending expropriation of its commercial property because of the motorway reconstruction project. On the same day the applicant company’s property was demolished. 4. On 19 March 2010 the applicant company was paid 400,000 Azerbaijani manats (AZN) (approximately 365,600 euros at the material time) comprising AZN 333,333 for the market value of the property and an additional 20% compensation under Presidential Decree no. 689 of 26 December 2007 by way of compensation for the expropriation. This amount was shown on the valuation report commissioned by the AzerYolServis OJSC from a private company (a copy of the report was not provided to the Court). 5. On an unspecified date the applicant company lodged a complaint with Baku Administrative-Economic Court No. 1 against the AzerYolServis OJSC and the Baku City Executive Authority (“the BCEA”). The applicant company asked the court to order the BCEA to either allocate it an 800 sq. m plot of land and to order the AzerYolServis OJSC to restore the demolished property to its original condition or to award AZN 667,088 for the value of its commercial property, as well as an additional AZN 100,000 for pecuniary damage, AZN 100,000 for damage to its business reputation, and AZN 31,123 for delayed payment. In support of its claim, the applicant company produced a valuation report prepared by a private company, which estimated the market value of the property in question at AZN 889,240. It contended that it had only been partly compensated (see paragraph 4 above) and that the payment had been made six months after the demolition of its property. It further complained that the expropriation was carried out in violation of the procedure prescribed by domestic law. 6. On 20 December 2011 the first-instance court dismissed the claim. The court found that the expropriation of the applicant company’s property had been carried out in accordance with the law and that the amount of compensation had been sufficient. It rejected the valuation report submitted by the applicant company, observing that the market value of the expropriated property under the expropriation procedure had to be established by a competent State authority. 7. By judgments of 16 May 2012 and 24 October 2012, the Baku Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court respectively dismissed the applicant company’s appeals. 8. The applicant company complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that it had been unlawfully deprived of its commercial property and that the compensation awarded had been inadequate. It further complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention that the domestic courts had failed to give reasons for their judgments and that it had not had an effective domestic remedy at its disposal for protecting its Convention rights.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 1
Outcome: violation