The applications mainly concerned the applicants\u2019 complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about an allegedly unlawful expropriation of their properties by the State authorities.<\/p>\n
FIFTH SECTION This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n In the case of Bagvanov and Others v. Azerbaijan,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Having regard to:<\/p>\n the applications against the Republic of Azerbaijan lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) by the applicants listed in the appended table (\u201cthe applicants\u201d), on the various dates indicated therein;<\/p>\n the decision to give notice of the complaints under Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention to the Azerbaijani Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) represented by their Agent, Mr\u00a0\u00c7. \u018fsg\u0259rov, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the applications;<\/p>\n the parties\u2019observations;<\/p>\n Having deliberated in private on 20 October 2022,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. The applications mainly concerned the applicants\u2019 complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about an allegedly unlawful expropriation of their properties by the State authorities.<\/p>\n 2. The applicants\u2019 details are set out in the appendix. The first applicant was represented by Ms S. Bagvanova. The remaining applicants were represented by Mr F. Agayev, a lawyer based in Azerbaijan.<\/p>\n 3. The facts of the present applications are similar in several respects to those of the case of Khalikova v. Azerbaijan (no. 42883\/11, 22 October 2015). As in that case, in the present applications, the applicants\u2019 properties were demolished by the Baku City Executive Authority (\u201cthe BCEA\u201d), on the basis of two orders issued by the head of the BCEA on 24 September 2008 and 16 February 2011 which stated that the buildings and houses located on certain streets were to be demolished for the purpose of constructing a new garden-park complex (\u201cthe Winter Park\u201d) and the residents were to be relocated. The applicants were offered 1,500\u00a0Azerbaijani manats (AZN) per sq. m of their properties in compensation. The BCEA offered to make the payments not as compensation for expropriation, but on the basis of contracts of sale to be entered into by the residents and two individuals, R.K. or Z.I., who were apparently acting on behalf of the BCEA. Most of the applicants entered into such contracts after the demolition of their property.<\/p>\n 4. On various dates, the applicants lodged complaints with the domestic courts complaining mainly that the above-mentioned orders, the actions of the BCEA\u2019s employees seeking to evict them from their properties, and the demolition of the properties had been unlawful, and\/or asking the courts to eliminate the obstacles preventing them from enjoying their ownership rights. On various dates, most of the applicants brought separate civil proceedings or amended their initial claims, asking the courts to declare unlawful the contracts of sale between them and R.K. or Z.I. because they had been entered into under duress. They also complained that the level of compensation offered or already paid by the BCEA had been too low. Some applicants also claimed compensation for the land underlying and\/or attached to their properties or for possessions of theirs that had allegedly been damaged or lost during the demolition of their properties.<\/p>\n 5. On various dates (see appendix), the relevant first-instance courts dismissed the applicants\u2019 complaints in full or in part, finding that the BCEA\u2019s actions had been lawful and the amount of compensation had been adequate. In respect of the claims regarding the contracts of sale, the courts held that they had been entered into in accordance with the relevant law. By final judgments delivered on various dates (see appendix) the Supreme Court dismissed or partly dismissed the applicants\u2019 cassation appeals, reiterating the reasoning of the lower courts. In respect of applications nos. 77919\/11, 9310\/12 and 5192\/13, the courts ruled partly in favour of the applicants and ordered compensation in the amount of AZN 1,500 per sq. m to be paid. In respect of application no. 13579\/13, the courts ruled partly in favour of the applicants and ordered compensation of AZN 1,500 per sq. m to be paid for a 9 sq. m area of the property which had not been covered by the contract of sale. The courts, of their own motion, also awarded an additional 20% compensation, in accordance with Presidential Decree no. 689 of 26\u00a0December 2007, to the applicants in applications nos. 73555\/12, 5192\/13 and 51850\/14.<\/p>\n 6. At the time of the latest communication with the parties in 2017, the respective final judgments in applications nos. 81486\/12 (Supreme Court judgment of 20 June 2012), 5192\/13 (Supreme Court judgment of 3 July 2014) and 51850\/14 (Supreme Court judgment of 15 January 2014) remained unenforced. The final judgment in application no. 73555\/12 (Supreme Court judgment of 10 October 2013) remained partly unenforced.<\/p>\n THE COURT\u2019S ASSESSMENT<\/strong><\/p>\n I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n 7. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.<\/p>\n II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF protocol no. 1 to THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 8. The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the de facto expropriation, by way of demolition, of their properties amounted to an unlawful and unjustified interference with their property rights. They further complained that the amount of compensation paid for the properties had been very low.The applicants in applications nos. 77919\/11, 9310\/12, 37786\/12, 57685\/12, 61516\/12, 73555\/12, 81486\/12, 5192\/13 and 51850\/14 also complained that they had not been paid compensation for the land underlying and\/or attached to their properties. The applicants in applications nos. 56371\/12, 81494\/12 and 5192\/13 complained that they had not been paid compensation for their possessions that had allegedly been damaged or lost during the demolition of their properties.<\/p>\n 1. Properties and plots of land underlying and\/or attached to them<\/em><\/p>\n 9. The Government argued that the applicants in the above-mentioned applications (see paragraph 8 above) did not have any title to the plots of land underlying and\/or attached to the buildings on the sites where their properties were located. Therefore, those plots of land did not constitute their \u201cpossessions\u201d. The applicants contested this argument.<\/p>\n 10. It is undisputed that the relevant properties, as indicated in the ownership documents, had been in the applicants\u2019 private ownership (see appendix).<\/p>\n 11. It appears from the case file that the applicant in application no.\u00a077919\/11 claimed before the domestic courts that the total surface area of his house was 231 sq. m, while before the Court he submitted that the total surface area of his property was 487 sq. m. However, no documentary evidence was produced in this respect before either the domestic courts or the Court. It cannot therefore be established that the applicant\u2019s claims in respect of the total surface area of his property beyond the size mentioned in the ownership documents amounted to his \u201cpossessions\u201d within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It follows that the part of the complaint related to that claim is incompatible rationemateriae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7 4.<\/p>\n 12. The Court observes that the properties owned by the applicants in application nos. 77919\/11 and 61516\/12 were private houses. In the case of Akhverdiyev v. Azerbaijan (no. 76254\/11, 29 January 2015), the Court held that a \u201clawful user\u201d of immovable property located on State-owned land had a right to have the land transferred into his or her ownership free of charge and that this right gave rise to a \u201clegitimate expectation\u201d of acquiring ownership of the land. Plots of land underlying and attached to a private residential house constituted the \u201cpossessions\u201d of the house owner by virtue of provisions of domestic law (see paragraphs 73-78 of the judgment). The Court sees no reason to reach a different conclusion in application no.\u00a077919\/11. Therefore, the plot of land underlying the house also constituted the applicant\u2019s \u201cpossessions\u201d.<\/p>\n 13. As to application no. 61516\/12, the Court notes that the applicant has not presented any document containing information about the plot of land occupied by the house and\/or attached to it, before either the domestic courts or the Court. It cannot therefore be established that the applicant\u2019s claim in respect of the plot of land underlying and\/or attached to the house amounted to his \u201cpossessions\u201d within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It follows that the part of the complaint related to that claim is incompatible rationemateriae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7 4.<\/p>\n 14. As to the remaining applications, the properties in question were flats situated in apartment buildings. Under Articles 35.1 and 36.4 of the Housing Code, the land underlying such buildings was in the common, shared ownership of the owners of the apartments in that building, who did not have the right to divide in kind or sell their shares or to perform other acts aimed at the separate alienation of their respective shares. Therefore, while such shares constituted the applicants\u2019 possessions under domestic law, they cannot be regarded as separate \u201cpossessions\u201d as such because they were attached to an apartment in the building of which they formed a part, thus constituting one whole property.<\/p>\n 15. The Court notes that the complaint, except the parts declared inadmissible in paragraphs 11 and 13 above, is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.<\/p>\n 16. The general principles concerning Article\u00a01 of Protocol No. 1 have been summarised in Akhverdiyev(\u00a7\u00a7 79-82),Khalikova(\u00a7\u00a7 134-36), both cited above, andMaharramov v. Azerbaijan (no. 5046\/07, \u00a7\u00a7 56-60, 30\u00a0March 2017).<\/p>\n 17. In Khalikovathe Court found that the expropriation of the applicant\u2019s property had not been carried out in compliance with \u201cconditions provided for by law\u201d.It concluded, in particular, that (i) the BCEA did not have the authority to expropriate private property; (ii) there was no lawful expropriation order issued by a competent State authority and (iii) the interference with the applicant\u2019s possessions thus constituted a de facto deprivation of possessions. The Court also found a contract of sale between the applicant and R.K. to be irrelevant, holding that (i) it had been entered into after the demolition of the applicant\u2019s property, and (ii) it was clear that R.K. had been entrusted with this task by the BCEA and had acted on behalf of the executive authorities. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present cases. It thus considers that the expropriation of the applicants\u2019 properties was not carried out in compliance with \u201cconditions provided for by law\u201d.<\/p>\n 18. There has accordingly been a violation of Article\u00a01 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.<\/p>\n 2. Allegedly damaged or lost possessions<\/em><\/p>\n 19. The Court notes that the applicants in applications nos. 56371\/12, 81494\/12 and 5192\/13 failed to substantiate their claims in respect of damaged or lost possessions before either the domestic courts or the Court. This part of the complaint is therefore manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n 20. Some of the applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the domestic courts\u2019 judgments or part of them had not been enforced (see paragraph 6 above).<\/p>\n 1. Applications nos. 73555\/12, 81486\/12, 5192\/13 and 51850\/14<\/em><\/p>\n 21. This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article\u00a035 \u00a7\u00a03\u00a0(a) of the Convention, nor it is inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that the complaint discloses a violation of Article 6 of the Convention in the light of its findings in Akhundov v. Azerbaijan (no. 39941\/07, \u00a7\u00a7 31-36, 3\u00a0February 2011); Jafarli and Others v. Azerbaijan (no. 36079\/06, \u00a7\u00a7 52-54, 29 July 2010); and Faber Firm and Jafarov v.\u00a0Azerbaijan (no. 3365\/08, \u00a7\u00a7 20-23, 25\u00a0November 2010).<\/p>\n 2. Application no. 13579\/13<\/em><\/p>\n 22. It appears that the amount awarded to the applicants for their shares in the flat under the Supreme Court\u2019s judgment of 22 August 2012 (see appendix) was paid to them on 11 April 2013. In their observations, the applicants submitted that they had already received the compensation awarded for a 9 sq. m area of the property (see paragraph 5 above) under the Supreme Court\u2019s judgment of 15 October 2014 (see appendix). They did not, however, mention the date on which that payment had been made. Nor did they appear to complain of delayed enforcement of the relevant judgment. This complaint is therefore manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n IV. OTHER COMPLAINTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 23. Some of the applicants also complained under Articles 6 (right to a reasoned judgment), 8 and 13 of the Convention that there had been a violation of their Convention rights. Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and its findings above, the Court considers that it has dealt with the main legal questions raised by the case and that there is no need to examine the remaining complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin C\u00e2mpeanu v. Romania [GC], no.47848\/08, \u00a7 156, ECHR 2014).<\/p>\n APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 24. The applicants claimed various amounts in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and for costs and expenses (see appendix).<\/p>\n 25. The Court considers that the question of the application of Article 41 is not ready for decision. It is therefore necessary to reserve the matter, due regard being had to the possibility of an agreement between the respondent State and the applicants (Rule 75 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 4 of the Rules of Court).<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. Decidesto join the applications;<\/p>\n 2. Declares the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 admissible, except the parts in respect of the claim in (i) application no. 77919\/11 regarding the additional surface area of the applicant\u2019s property; (ii) application no. 61516\/12 as regards the plot of land underlying the applicant\u2019s property and (iii) applications nos. 56371\/12, 81494\/12 and 5192\/13 as regards the allegedly damaged or lost possessions;<\/p>\n 3. Declares the complaint under Article 6 of the Convention regarding the non-enforcement of final judgments admissible in applications nos.\u00a073555\/12, 81486\/12, 5192\/13 and 51850\/14, and inadmissible in application no. 13579\/13;<\/p>\n 4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;<\/p>\n 5. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention as regards the non-enforcement of final judgments in applications nos.\u00a073555\/12, 81486\/12, 5192\/13 and 51850\/14;<\/p>\n 6. Holdsthat there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the complaints under Articles 6 (right to a reasoned judgment), 8 and 13 of the Convention;<\/p>\n 7. Holds that the question of the application of Article 41 of the Convention is not ready for decision; accordingly,<\/p>\n (a) reserves\u00a0the said question in whole;<\/p>\n (b) invites\u00a0the Government and the applicant to submit, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 \u00a7 2 of the Convention, their written observations on the matter and, in particular, to notify the Court of any agreement that they may reach;<\/p>\n (c) reserves\u00a0the further procedure and\u00a0delegates\u00a0to the President of the Committee the power to fix the same if need be.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 November 2022, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Martina Keller \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits _______________<\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/strong><\/p>\n List of cases:<\/p>\n no.<\/strong><\/td>\n on<\/strong><\/td>\n year of birth<\/strong><\/p>\n place of residence<\/strong><\/td>\n \u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n 1956<\/p>\n Baku<\/td>\n Baku Court of Appeal 11\/02\/2011<\/p>\n Supreme Court 07\/09\/2011<\/td>\n AZN 217,050 paid under the contract<\/p>\n <\/td>\n EUR 700,000 for non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n EUR 10,000 for costs and expenses.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 1979<\/p>\n Baku<\/td>\n Baku Administrative-Economic Court No. 1 14\/06\/2012<\/p>\n Baku Court of Appeal 10\/09\/2012<\/p>\n Supreme Court 13\/02\/2013<\/p>\n 2nd<\/sup> set of proceedings:<\/p>\n Sabail District Court 15\/08\/2014<\/p>\n Baku Court of Appeal 03\/12\/2014<\/p>\n Supreme Court 24\/04\/2015<\/td>\n EUR 300,000 for non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n AZN 7,000 for legal services and AZN 200 for postal expenses.<\/p>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 1942<\/p>\n Sumgayit<\/td>\n Nasimi District Court 27\/09\/2010<\/p>\n Baku Court of Appeal 27\/01\/2011<\/p>\n Supreme Court 22\/06\/2011<\/p>\n Baku Court of Appeal 14\/10\/2011<\/p>\n Supreme Court 21\/02\/2021<\/p>\n 2nd<\/sup> set of proceedings:<\/p>\n Nasimi District Court 01\/03\/2011<\/p>\n Baku Court of Appeal 12\/05\/2011<\/p>\n Supreme Court 13\/10\/2011<\/td>\n EUR 100,000 for non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n EUR 6,000 for legal services and EUR 200 for postal expenses.<\/p>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 1965<\/p>\n Baku<\/td>\n Baku Court of Appeal 10\/08\/2011<\/p>\n Supreme Court 22\/12\/2011<\/td>\n EUR 200,000 for non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n EUR 5,000 for legal services and AZN 200 for postal expenses.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 1953<\/p>\n Baku<\/td>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/td>\n Baku Court of Appeal 01\/09\/2011<\/p>\n Supreme Court 19\/01\/2012<\/td>\n <\/td>\n EUR 100,000 for non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n AZN 5,000 for legal services and AZN 70 for postal expenses.<\/p>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 1959<\/p>\n Baku<\/td>\n <\/td>\n EUR 100,000 for non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n AZN 3,500 for legal services.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 1969<\/p>\n Baku<\/td>\n Baku Administrative-Economic Court No. 1 05\/12\/2011<\/p>\n Baku Court of Appeal 22\/02\/2012<\/p>\n Supreme Court 02\/05\/2012<\/p>\n 2nd<\/sup> set of proceedings<\/p>\n Nasimi District Court 09\/07\/2013<\/p>\n Baku Court of Appeal 27\/09\/2013<\/p>\n Supreme Court 17\/02\/2014<\/td>\n <\/td>\n EUR 70,000 for non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n AZN 7,000 for legal services and AZN 110 for postal expenses.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 1946<\/p>\n Baku<\/td>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/td>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/td>\n Nasimi District Court 29\/11\/2010<\/p>\n Baku Court of Appeal 23\/08\/2012<\/p>\n Supreme Court 18\/01\/2013<\/p>\n 2nd<\/sup> set of proceedings:<\/p>\n Nasimi District Court 03\/08\/2011<\/p>\n Baku Court of Appeal 17\/10\/2011<\/p>\n Supreme Court 07\/03\/2012 (served on 06\/04\/2012)<\/td>\n <\/td>\n EUR 100,000 for non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n AZN 5,000 for legal services and AZN 100 for postal expenses.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 1969<\/p>\n Baku<\/td>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/td>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/td>\n EUR 50,000 for non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n AZN 5,000 for legal services.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 1966<\/p>\n Baku<\/td>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/td>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n EUR 100,000 for non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n AZN 7,000 for legal services.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 1957<\/p>\n Baku<\/td>\n <\/p>\n <\/td>\n EUR 100,000 for non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n AZN 7,000 for legal services.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 1969<\/p>\n Baku<\/td>\n <\/p>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n EUR 50,000 for non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n AZN 7,000 for legal services.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 1968<\/p>\n Baku<\/td>\n <\/p>\n <\/td>\n EUR 200,000 for non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n EUR 5,000 for legal services and AZN 70 for postal expenses.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 1951<\/p>\n Baku<\/p>\n <\/td>\n <\/p>\n <\/td>\n Baku Administrative-Economic Court No. 1 14\/12\/2011<\/p>\n Baku Court of Appeal 06\/03\/2012<\/p>\n Supreme Court 13\/06\/2012<\/p>\n 2nd<\/sup> set of proceedings:<\/p>\n Baku Administrative-Economic Court No. 1 14\/03\/2013<\/p>\n Baku Court of Appeal 19\/06\/2013<\/p>\n Supreme Court 10\/10\/2013<\/td>\n but paid AZN 121,650 only under the contract<\/p>\n <\/td>\n EUR 100,000 for non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n AZN 10,500 for legal services and AZN 200 for postal expenses.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 1966<\/p>\n Baku<\/td>\n Baku Court of Appeal 06\/03\/2012<\/p>\n Supreme Court 20\/06\/2012<\/td>\n EUR 50,000 for non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n AZN 3,500 for legal services.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 1944<\/p>\n Baku<\/td>\n Baku Court of Appeal 03\/04.2012<\/p>\n Supreme Court 29\/08\/2012<\/td>\n <\/td>\n EUR 300,000 for non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n AZN 5,000 for legal services and AZN 100 for postal expenses.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 1958<\/p>\n Baku<\/td>\n Baku Administrative-Economic Court No. 1 28\/12\/2011<\/p>\n Baku Court of Appeal 03\/04\/2012<\/p>\n Supreme Court 04\/07\/2012<\/p>\n 2nd<\/sup> set of proceedings<\/p>\n Baku Administrative-Economic Court No. 1 18\/12\/2013<\/p>\n Baku Court of Appeal 02\/04\/2014<\/p>\n Supreme Court 03\/07\/2014<\/td>\n <\/p>\n <\/td>\n EUR 500,000 for non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n AZN 10,500 for legal services and AZN 200 for postal expenses.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 1953<\/p>\n Baku<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/td>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n 1\/3 of the same flat<\/p>\n <\/p>\n +<\/p>\n buildings of 9 sq. m<\/p>\n <\/td>\n Baku Administrative-Economic Court No. 1 25\/01\/2012<\/p>\n Baku Court of Appeal 30\/05\/2012<\/p>\n Supreme Court 22\/08\/2012<\/p>\n 2nd<\/sup> set of proceedings<\/p>\n Sabail District Court 10\/01\/2014<\/p>\n Baku Court of Appeal 07\/05\/2014<\/p>\n Supreme Court 15\/10\/2014<\/td>\n <\/td>\n EUR 50,000 for non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n AZN 7,000 for legal services.<\/p>\n EUR 70,000 for pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n EUR 50,000 for non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n AZN 7,000 for legal services.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 1976<\/p>\n Baku<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 1943<\/p>\n Baku<\/td>\n Baku Court of Appeal 11\/09\/2013<\/p>\n Supreme Court 15\/01\/2014<\/td>\n AZN 57,240 awarded by the courts but not paid<\/td>\n EUR 300,000 for non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n AZN 5,000 for legal services and AZN 70 for postal expenses.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nCASE OF BAGVANOV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 77919\/11 and 13 others \u2013 see list appended)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\n(Merits)
\nSTRASBOURG
\n10 November 2022<\/p>\n
\nM\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits, President,
\nL\u0259tif H\u00fcseynov,
\nKate\u0159ina \u0160im\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1, judges,
\nand Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nDeputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0President<\/p>\n\n\n
\n No<\/strong><\/td>\n Application<\/strong><\/p>\n Lodged<\/strong><\/p>\n Applicant name<\/strong><\/p>\n Type and size of property (according to the ownership documents)<\/strong><\/td>\n Date of demolition<\/strong><\/td>\n Date of sale contract <\/strong><\/td>\n Domestic courts\u2019 judgments\/decisions<\/strong><\/p>\n Compensation awarded\/paid at the domestic level<\/strong><\/td>\n Just satisfaction claims<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1<\/td>\n 77919\/11<\/td>\n 22\/11\/2011<\/td>\n Ismayil BAGVANOV<\/strong><\/p>\n A house of 95.6 sq. m + buildings of 29.1 sq. m + a garage of 20 sq. m located on plot of land of 0.0232 ha<\/td>\n 04\/12\/2010<\/td>\n 23\/09\/2011<\/td>\n Nasimi District Court 04\/10\/2010<\/p>\n AZN 187,050 for pecuniary damage awarded by the courts;<\/p>\n EUR 2,300,000 for pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n \n 2<\/td>\n 9310\/12*<\/td>\n 14\/02\/2012<\/td>\n Darya GULIYEVA<\/strong><\/p>\n A flat of 105 sq. m<\/td>\n 25\/03\/2012<\/td>\n 06\/02\/2014<\/td>\n 1st<\/sup> set of proceedings:<\/p>\n AZN 157,500 for pecuniary damage + AZN 2,000 for non-pecuniary damage awarded by the courts<\/td>\n EUR 770,000 for pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n \n 3<\/td>\n 22730\/12*<\/td>\n 12\/04\/2012<\/td>\n Eldar HUSEYNOV<\/strong><\/p>\n A flat of 28 sq. m<\/td>\n -\/09\/2010<\/td>\n 14\/12\/2010<\/td>\n 1st<\/sup> set of proceedings:<\/p>\n AZN 42,000 for pecuniary damage awarded by the courts<\/td>\n EUR 700,000 for pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n \n 4<\/td>\n 37786\/12*<\/td>\n 18\/06\/2012<\/td>\n Kamala ALIYEVA<\/strong><\/p>\n Two rooms of 39.1 sq. m in a flat<\/td>\n 19\/11\/2010<\/td>\n 09\/12\/2010<\/td>\n Nasimi District Court 11\/04\/2011<\/p>\n AZN 58,650 paid under the contract<\/td>\n EUR 550,000 for pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n \n 5<\/td>\n 44972\/12*<\/td>\n 18\/07\/2012<\/td>\n Intizar ALLAHVERDIYEVA<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00bd of a flat of 68 sq. m<\/p>\n -\/12\/2010<\/td>\n 05\/01\/2011<\/td>\n Nasimi District Court 28\/04\/2011<\/p>\n AZN 51,000 paid under the contract<\/p>\n EUR 200,000 for pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n \n Zarifa ALLAHVERDIYEVA<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00bd of the same flat<\/td>\n -\/12\/2010<\/td>\n AZN 51,000 paid under the contract<\/p>\n EUR 200,000 for pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n \n 6<\/td>\n 56371\/12*<\/td>\n 31\/08\/2012<\/td>\n Parviz AMIROV<\/strong><\/p>\n One room of 12.5 sq. m in a flat<\/td>\n -\/11\/2010<\/td>\n 01\/02\/2013<\/td>\n 1st<\/sup> set of proceedings<\/p>\n AZN 31,995 paid under the contract<\/p>\n EUR 82,000 for pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n \n 7<\/td>\n 57685\/12*<\/td>\n 06\/09\/2012<\/td>\n Minakhanim AZIMOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n Two rooms of 34 sq. m in a flat<\/p>\n -\/11\/2010<\/p>\n 07\/12\/2010<\/td>\n 1st<\/sup> set of proceedings:<\/p>\n AZN 90,000 paid under the contract<\/p>\n EUR 220,000 for pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n \n Mehriban ALIYEVA<\/strong><\/p>\n A flat of 29 sq. m<\/p>\n -\/11\/2010<\/p>\n 21\/12\/2010<\/td>\n AZN 43,500 paid under the contract<\/td>\n EUR 110,000 for pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n \n Valeriya MAHMUDOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n A flat of 61 sq. m<\/p>\n -\/11\/2010<\/p>\n 21\/12\/2010<\/td>\n AZN 91,500 paid under the contract<\/p>\n EUR 225,000 for pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n \n Rugiya MAMMAD<\/strong><\/p>\n Four rooms of a flat of 101.5 sq. m<\/p>\n -\/11\/2010<\/td>\n 03\/12\/2010<\/td>\n AZN 134,250 paid under the contract<\/td>\n EUR 420,000 for pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n \n Saadat AZIZOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n One room of 12 sq. m of the same flat<\/p>\n -\/11\/2010<\/p>\n 03\/12\/2010<\/td>\n AZN 18,000 paid under the contract<\/td>\n EUR 70,000 for pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n \n 8<\/td>\n 61516\/12*<\/td>\n 24\/09\/2012<\/td>\n Fuad ALIYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n 11\/12 of a house (no information is available about the size of the house)<\/td>\n -\/11\/2010<\/td>\n 09\/12\/2010<\/td>\n Nasimi District Court 08\/08\/2011
\nBaku Court of Appeal 04\/11\/2011Supreme Court 29\/03\/2012<\/td>\nAZN 68,887 paid under the contract<\/p>\n EUR 700,000 for pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n \n 9<\/td>\n 73555\/12*<\/td>\n 16\/11\/2012<\/td>\n Yasaman KARIMOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n A flat of 65 sq. m + basement of 16.1 sq. m<\/p>\n unspecified<\/td>\n 27\/02\/2015<\/td>\n 1st<\/sup> set of proceedings:<\/p>\n AZN 145,980 for pecuniary damage and AZN 1,000 for non-pecuniary damage awarded by the courts,<\/p>\n EUR 370,000 for pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n \n 10<\/td>\n 81486\/12*<\/td>\n 19\/12\/2012<\/td>\n Flora GADIROVA<\/strong><\/p>\n One room of 14.7 sq. m in a flat<\/td>\n 08\/06\/2011<\/td>\n No contract<\/td>\n Baku Administrative-Economic Court No. 1 30\/11\/2011<\/p>\n AZN 22,500 awarded by the courts but not paid<\/td>\n EUR 100,000 for pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n \n 11<\/td>\n 81494\/12*<\/td>\n 20\/12\/2012<\/td>\n Rukhsara HUSEYNOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n A flat of 172 sq. m<\/td>\n 19\/11\/2010<\/td>\n 06\/11\/2010<\/td>\n Nasimi District Court 27\/12\/2011<\/p>\n AZN 259,500 paid under the contract<\/p>\n EUR 1,600,000 for pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n \n 12<\/td>\n 5192\/13*<\/td>\n 28\/12\/2012<\/td>\n Afag ISMAYILOVA<\/strong><\/p>\n A flat of 107.5 sq. m<\/td>\n 02\/04\/2012<\/td>\n No contract<\/td>\n 1st<\/sup> set of proceedings<\/p>\n AZN 193,500 for pecuniary damage and AZN 2,500 for non-pecuniary damage awarded by the courts, but not paid<\/p>\n EUR 1,500,000 for pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n \n 13<\/td>\n 13579\/13*<\/td>\n 22\/02\/2013<\/td>\n Shirinbaji RZAYEVA<\/strong><\/p>\n 1\/3 of a flat of 41.3 sq. m<\/p>\n 23\/04\/2012<\/td>\n 11\/04\/2013<\/td>\n 1st<\/sup> set of proceedings<\/p>\n AZN 20,650 to each applicant for their shares in the flat awarded by the courts, paid under the contract, and AZN 13,500 jointly for buildings<\/p>\n EUR 70,000 for pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n \n Ali RZA<\/strong><\/p>\n \n 14<\/td>\n 51850\/14*<\/td>\n 15\/07\/2014<\/td>\n Lilya ALIYEVA<\/strong><\/p>\n A flat of 190.8 sq. m<\/td>\n -\/03\/2013<\/td>\n 12\/03\/2013<\/td>\n Baku Administrative-Economic Court No. 1 31\/05\/2013<\/p>\n AZN 286,200 paid under the contract;<\/p>\n EUR 1,500,000 for pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n