FIRST SECTION
CASE OF AGAYEV & ZULFUGARZADEH COMPANY v. AZERBAIJAN
(Application no. 31222/14)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
(Merits)
STRASBOURG
24 October 2024
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Agayev & Zulfugarzadeh Company v. Azerbaijan,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Raffaele Sabato, President,
 Lətif Hüseynov,
 Alain Chablais, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 31222/14) 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 17 April 2014 by Agayev & Zulfugarzadeh Company (“the applicant company”), based in Baku, which was represented by Mr F. Agayev, a lawyer based in Azerbaijan;
the decision to give notice of the complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 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 3 October 2024,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns an allegedly unlawful expropriation by the Baku City Executive Authority (“the BCEA”) of a house in the shared ownership of the applicant company and two individuals, for the purpose of constructing a new garden-park complex (“the Winter Park”). 2. According to the ownership certificate issued by the Technical Inventory and Ownership Rights Registration Department of the BCEA, the applicant company owned two rooms (34.83 sq. m in total), while the other two individuals owned one room and the remaining part of the house respectively. 3. The facts of the present case are similar in several respects to those in the case of Khalikova v. Azerbaijan (no. 42883/11, 22 October 2015). As in that case, the applicant company’s property in the present case was demolished by the BCEA on the basis of order no. 76 issued by the Head of the BCEA on 16 February 2011, which stated that the buildings and houses located on certain streets were to be demolished for the purpose of constructing the Winter Park and the residents were to be relocated. 4. According to the applicant company, on 23 September 2012 the BCEA started demolishing the house. 5. On the following day the applicant company applied to the State Land and Cartography Committee (“the SLCC”) asking it to issue a plan and measurements of the plot of land underlying and attached to the house. 6. On the same date the applicant company brought proceedings against the BCEA and several other State authorities, seeking, inter alia, the invalidation of the BCEA’s order (see paragraph 3 above) and an award of compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage (“the first claim”). It argued that the size of its share in the house was 55.73 sq. m (rather than 34.83 sq. m as stated in paragraph 2 above) and that 69.48 sq. m of the land underlying and attached to the house belonged to the company by virtue of the provisions of domestic law. 7. Following the SLCC’s refusal to grant the applicant company’s request, on 22 November 2012 it lodged a separate claim against the SLCC, asking the courts to order it to issue the relevant plan and measurements (“the second claim”). 8. It appears that in November 2012 the house in question was completely demolished. 9. By a final judgment of 17 October 2013, the Supreme Court dismissed the second claim. It found, in particular, that the plot of land underlying and attached to the house did not constitute the applicant company’s possessions owing to the lack of legal grounds. The Supreme Court held that Article 9 of the Law on Land Reform, under which the plots of land underneath private residential houses lawfully used by citizens were transferred from State ownership into the occupants’ private ownership under the relevant procedure, did not apply to the applicant company as it was a legal person. The court additionally held that the applicant company had failed to provide evidence of any agreement made with the co-owners of the house concerning the use of the land and their consent to the company’s privatisation of 69.48 sq. m of the land. 10. By a final judgment of 29 January 2014, the Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s judgment, partly granting the first claim and awarding the applicant company 62,694 Azerbaijani manats (AZN) in compensation (AZN 1,500 per square metre for its share in the house and an additional 20% under Presidential Decree no. 689 of 26 December 2007). The court dismissed the applicant company’s claim in respect of the additional surface area and the plot of land in question (see paragraph 6 above), holding that it did not have any rights over them. 11. At the time of the latest communication with the parties in 2022, the Supreme Court’s judgment of 29 January 2014 remained unenforced. 12. The applicant company complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the interference with its property rights had been unlawful and unjustified. It further complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the Supreme Court’s final judgment of 29 January 2014 had not been enforced. It also claimed that there had been a violation of its Convention right to a reasoned decision under Article 6 and Article 13.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 6
Outcome: violation