THIRD SECTION
CASE OF ABDULLAYEVA AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
(Application no. 39342/14)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
23 September 2025
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Abdullayeva and Others v. Azerbaijan,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Canòlic Mingorance Cairat, President,
 Lətif Hüseynov,
 Vasilka Sancin, judges,
and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 39342/14) 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 15 May 2014 by four Azerbaijani nationals (see the appended table), who were represented by Mr N. Heydarov, a lawyer based in Azerbaijan;
the decision to give notice of the application to the Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Əsgərov;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 2 September 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The application mainly concerns the applicants’ complaint of the allegedly unlawful demolition of their property. 2. The applicants are family members of Mr Ali Abdullayev, who owned two non-residential buildings of 89.4 sq. m (“the first building”) and 60.1 sq. m (“the second building”) on different streets in Gadabay, in accordance with the ownership documents issued by the State authorities in 1998 and 2010 respectively. A second “technical passport” was issued in respect of the first building in 2002 indicating that its surface area was 247.33 sq. m. 3. According to the applicants, on 21 May 2012 the representatives of the Gadabay District Executive Authority (“the GDEA”), supported by the police, destroyed the buildings in question without any prior notice. 4. In a reply to a complaint lodged by Mr Abdullayev, the Gadabay District Police Department indicated that his property had been demolished in the course of renovation works in the central part of Gadabay. 5. In August 2012 Mr Abdullayev brought proceedings against the GDEA before the Ganja Administrative-Economic Court. He complained that the GDEA had unlawfully demolished his property, in breach of domestic law concerning expropriation, and he submitted, among other things, photographs of his property taken before and after the destruction. He asked the court to award him 718,200 Azerbaijani manats (AZN) in respect of pecuniary damage, AZN 30,000 in respect of lost profit and AZN 50,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. He alleged that the first building had had three floors with an actual surface area of 549 sq. m and had contained a shop on the first floor and hotel rooms on the second and third floors; he submitted valuation reports from a private company which estimated the market value of the two buildings at AZN 550,000 and AZN 48,000 respectively. 6. On 21 June 2013 the Ganja Administrative-Economic Court allowed the applicant’s claim in part. The court established that following the destruction of Mr Abdullayev’s property, the land underlying it was used for public purposes. It further held that there was no proof that the property in question had been demolished by force and referred to the GDEA’s statement given at the court hearing that during the renovation works a piece of heavy equipment belonging to the GDEA had slipped and accidentally destroyed the first building. The court therefore held the GDEA civilly liable and awarded Mr Abdullayev AZN 31,586 – the amount indicated as the market value of the first building in the valuation report commissioned by the GDEA and presented to the court. It did not, however, establish how and by whom the second building had been demolished or make any award in respect of that property. The court also dismissed the valuation reports submitted by Mr Abdullayev, holding that the company which had drawn them up did not have “special authorisation”, required under domestic law in force at the material time. 7. Mr Abdullayev lodged an appeal, arguing, inter alia, that the requirement of “special authorisation” had been removed from the relevant law in 2007 and that the court’s reliance on this ground had thus been unlawful. He further argued that the court had failed to examine the relevant pieces of evidence submitted by him, which proved that the building had deliberately been demolished by the GDEA. He also complained that the court had failed to award him damages in respect of the second building. 8. While the appeal proceedings were pending, Mr Abdullayev died and the applicants joined the proceedings as his heirs. 9. On 14 November 2013 and 13 February 2014 respectively the Ganja Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court dismissed the applicants’ appeals, reiterating the same reasoning (see paragraph 6 above). In reply to the argument concerning the lower courts’ reliance on the above-mentioned ground for dismissing the reports relied on by the applicants (see paragraph 5 above), the Supreme Court stated, in a general manner, that this fact in itself did not affect the overall lawfulness of the lower courts’ judgments. 10. The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that they had been unlawfully deprived of their property and that they had not been awarded fair compensation. They also complained of a violation of their right to a reasoned judgment under Article 6 of the Convention.

Outcome for Article P1-1: violation