Last Updated on August 31, 2023 by LawEuro
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF GULIYEVA v. AZERBAIJAN
(Application no. 51424/08)
JUDGMENT
(Just satisfaction)
STRASBOURG
31 August 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Guliyeva 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 Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 27 June 2023,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 51424/08) 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”) by an Azerbaijani national, Ms Sugra Ahmadali gizi Guliyeva (Suğra Əhmədalı qızı Quliyeva – “the applicant”), on 18 October 2008.
2. In a judgment delivered on 23 September 2021 (“the principal judgment”), the Court held that the applicant had been deprived of her possessions, specifically a plot of land, in breach of the requirement of lawfulness and that, consequently, there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Guliyeva v. Azerbaijan [Committee], no. 51424/08, §§ 64-65 and point 2 of the operative provisions, 23 September 2021).
3. Under Article 41 of the Convention the applicant claimed, for pecuniary damage, a sum corresponding to the value of the plot of land in issue and the buildings erected on that land as well as an unspecified sum for “lost benefit”. She also claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damage. Lastly, she claimed an unspecified sum for the reimbursement of costs and expenses (ibid., §§ 72-73).
4. Since the question of the application of Article 41 of the Convention was not ready for decision, the Court reserved it in whole and invited the Government and the applicant to submit, within three months, their written observations on that issue and, in particular, to notify the Court of any agreement they might reach (ibid., § 75 and point 4 of the operative provisions).
5. The parties did not reach an agreement on just satisfaction within the time allocated for that purpose. The applicant and the Government each filed observations, which were transmitted to the other party for comments.
THE LAW
6. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
I. PECUNIARY DAMAGE
A. The parties’ submissions
7. The applicant had originally claimed a total of 232,750 Azerbaijani manats (AZN) in respect of pecuniary damage, comprising (a) AZN 114,750 for the plot of land, that amount having been estimated according to a letter of 30 October 2007 from an NGO named Property Market Participants (“Əmlak Bazarı İştirakçıları” İctimai Birliyi); (b) AZN 118,000 for the buildings; and (c) an unspecified amount for “lost benefit”.
8. In her observations following the adoption of the principal judgment, the applicant submitted that the plot of land had had a market value of AZN 90,000 in the period 2006-08, whereas, as of 5 March 2022, when it was assessed by a private company, it had had a market value of AZN 120,000.
9. In their comments on the applicant’s original claim, the Government argued that, by the decisions of the domestic courts, the applicant had been awarded another plot of land in compensation and that the calculations presented by her in respect of her original plot of land had not represented its market value.
10. In their observations submitted after the adoption of the principal judgment, the Government reiterated that the domestic courts had awarded the applicant another plot of land. They further contested her claim by arguing that the applicant’s original plot of land had had a value of AZN 74,910 as of October 2007. They submitted an expert opinion by a private company in that connection.
B. The Court’s assessment
11. The Court reiterates that a judgment in which it finds a breach of the Convention or its Protocols imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation to put an end to the breach and make reparation for its consequences in such a way as to restore as far as possible the situation existing before the breach. If national law does not allow reparation or allows only partial reparation, Article 41 of the Convention empowers the Court to afford the injured party such satisfaction as appears to it to be appropriate (see Akhverdiyev v. Azerbaijan (just satisfaction), no. 76254/11, § 25, 21 March 2019, and Maharramov v. Azerbaijan (just satisfaction), no. 5046/07, § 12, 9 May 2019).
12. In the principal judgment the Court held that only the plot of land constituted the applicant’s possessions (see the principal judgment, §§ 44 and 50). The part of the claim concerning the value of the buildings erected on the plot of land must therefore be rejected. Moreover, the part of the claim concerning “lost benefit” must also be rejected, as the applicant has failed to substantiate it.
13. As to the part of the claim concerning the plot of land, the Court firstly notes that in the domestic proceedings, the applicant was not awarded any monetary compensation; instead, she was eventually awarded another plot of land (see the principal judgment, §§ 17 and 19-20). However, it has neither been argued nor demonstrated that the applicant took possession of that plot of land. She consistently disputed the adequacy of that compensation before the domestic courts and refused to accept it (ibid., § 18). Furthermore, the Court found in the principal judgment that, in the present case, an award in the form of in-kind compensation without the applicant’s consent was not in compliance with the domestic law on expropriation of private property (ibid., § 63).
14. The Court therefore considers that the applicant should be awarded compensation for the expropriated plot of land. It observes that whereas the report submitted by the applicant indicates the value of the land in both the period 2006-08 and in 2022, the report submitted by the Government only indicates the value of the land in 2007. It is true that when assessing pecuniary damage, the date to be taken into account is the date on which the applicant was deprived of his or her property. However, as the adequacy of compensation is likely to be diminished if it were to be paid without reference to various circumstances liable to reduce its value, such as the lapse of a considerable period of time, that amount will have to be converted to its current value in order to offset the effects of inflation (see Akhverdiyev, cited above, § 33).
15. The Court has previously stressed that when it adjourns the question of just satisfaction as it did in this case, it does so in order to provide the parties with an opportunity to reach a friendly settlement or present written observations; the latter to ensure that the application of Article 41 is ready for decision (see Maharramov, cited above, § 19).
16. In the present case, the Government’s submissions do not contain any information in respect of calculation of necessary adjustments in line with the principles established in Guiso-Gallisay v. Italy ((just satisfaction) [GC], no. 58858/00, § 105, 22 December 2009). Furthermore, it appears that a simple adjustment of the value of the land provided by the Government based on the average annual inflation rates for the relevant period, available on the official websites of the State Statistical Committee and the Central Bank of the Republic of Azerbaijan, would result in an amount higher than what the applicant has claimed before the Court. Therefore, in the specific circumstances of the present case, and by virtue of the non ultra petita principle, the Court finds it more appropriate to proceed on the basis of the valuation submitted by the applicant, according to which the value of the land in 2022 was AZN 120,000, corresponding to 62,200 euros (EUR). The Court thus awards the applicant that sum under this head, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
II. NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGE
17. The applicant claimed EUR 20,000 in respect of non‑pecuniary damage.
18. The Government argued that the applicant’s claim was unsubstantiated and excessive.
19. Ruling on an equitable basis, as required by Article 41 of the Convention, the Court awards the applicant the sum of EUR 3,000 under this head, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
III. COSTS AND EXPENSES
20. The applicant claimed an unspecified amount in respect of costs and expenses incurred before the Court, namely legal fees and translation and postal expenses. She submitted several invoices for postal expenses.
21. The Government argued that the applicant had failed to submit any documentary evidence in respect of the legal fees.
22. The Court observes that the applicant did not submit any contract for legal and translation services. Moreover, she failed to submit a quantified claim for costs and expenses (compare Bartolo Parnis and Others v. Malta, nos. 49378/18 and 3 others, § 77, 7 October 2021). The Court therefore makes no award under this head.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 62,200 (sixty-two thousand two hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
2. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 31 August 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv Tigerstedt Krzysztof Wojtyczek
Deputy Registrar President
Leave a Reply