FIRST SECTION
CASE OF MAMMADOVA v. AZERBAIJAN
(Application no. 38228/12)
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
 
 
 
 
STRASBOURG
29 June 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Mammadova v. Azerbaijan,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Krzysztof Wojtyczek, President,
 Lətif Hüseynov,
 Erik Wennerström, judges,
and Attila Teplán, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 38228/12) 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 13 June 2012 by an Azerbaijani national, Ms Lalazar Hasan gizi Mammadova (Laləzar Həsən qızı Məmmədova – “the applicant”), born in 1962 and living in Ganja, who was represented by Mr I. Aliyev, a lawyer based in Azerbaijan;
the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning Articles 8 and 34 of 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 6 June 2023,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The present case concerns the eviction of the applicant from a non-residential building where she has lived for several years. 2. On an unspecified date in 1996 the applicant became homeless after she had lost her flat as a result of a fraud. On an unspecified date in 1996 she and her family were allowed by the Scientific Research Silkmaking Institute of Azerbaijan (hereinafter “the Institute”) to move into a part of a non‑residential building belonging to the Ganja Experimental Practical Gene Pool Base of the Institute (hereinafter “the building”). On 11 July 2005 the Deputy Head of the Ganja City Executive Authority issued a letter stating that the Executive Authority “ha[d] no objection to the applicant residing in the building”. 3. In 2011 the Institute lodged a claim against the applicant in the Kapaz District Court, arguing that her occupation of the building was unlawful and seeking an eviction order. 4. On 5 July 2011 the Kapaz District Court ordered the applicant’s eviction, finding that she was occupying the building unlawfully. The applicant appealed, arguing that she had been living there for fifteen years without any objection by the Institute and that she did not have anywhere else to live. 5. On 22 November 2011 the Ganja Court of Appeal and on 16 March 2012 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment. 6. The last communication from the parties indicated that the applicant was evicted from the building in June 2012. According to the applicant, the building from which she was evicted was demolished in 2017. 7. On 8 August 2014 the applicant’s lawyer, Mr I. Aliyev, was arrested on charges of tax evasion, illegal entrepreneurship, and abuse of authority. During a search of his office, a number of documents were seized by the State authorities, including all the case files relating to applications before the Court that were in the possession of Mr I. Aliyev as the applicants’ representative. On 25 October 2014 some of the seized documents were returned to Mr J. Javadov, Mr. I. Aliyev’s counsel. 8. By a fax dated 28 August 2014, Mr I. Aliyev informed the Court of the seizure of the case files, claiming a breach of Article 34 of the Convention in respect of all the applications affected. In the letters he sent to the Court in September 2014 Mr I. Aliyev reiterated his complaint concerning the seizure of the case files. 9. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant complained that her eviction had violated her Convention rights. She also argued that there had been a hindrance to the exercise of her right of individual petition under Article 34 of the Convention.

Outcome for Article 8: violation