FIFTH SECTION<\/p>\n
DECISION<\/p>\n
Application no. 28333\/11
\nShahin AGAMMADOV<\/p>\n
against Azerbaijan<\/p>\n
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 17 January 2019 as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n
S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary, President,
\nM\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits,
\nLado Chanturia, judges,
\nand Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 April 2011,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,<\/p>\n
Having deliberated, decides as follows:<\/p>\n
FACTS AND PROCEDURE<\/p>\n
The applicant, Mr Shahin Agammadov, is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1957 and lives in Shamakhi.<\/p>\n
The applicant\u2019s complaints under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning the non-enforcement of domestic decision were communicated to the Azerbaijani Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d).<\/p>\n
The applicant, an entrepreneur, concluded a loan agreement with a private bank (hereinafter \u201cthe bank\u201d). In the meantime, he concluded another loan agreement with the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection and a flour\u2011mill that he owned and operated (hereinafter \u201cthe property\u201d) was mortgaged to secure this agreement.<\/p>\n
Following the bank\u2019s action against the applicant, requesting the court to order the attachment of the applicant\u2019s property to secure the payment of the loan, by a final judgment of 3 May 2002, the Supreme Court held that the applicant\u2019s property in question was not subject to attachment. However, on 12 July 2002 the enforcement officers seized the applicant\u2019s property, claiming that they acted in compliance with a letter from the Supreme Court, which provided an interpretation of the judgment of 3 May 2002.<\/p>\n
The applicant lodged an action against the enforcement department and the bank, requesting the court to order a reversal of the enforcement by returning the attached property to him. On 23 March 2004 Administrative Economic Court No. 1 granted the applicant\u2019s claims and ordered the reversal of the enforcement.<\/p>\n
According to information submitted by the Government, by final judgment of 28 October 2004, the Supreme Court quashed the judgment of 23 March 2004 of Administrative Economic Court No. 1, finding the applicant\u2019s complaints relating to unlawfulness of the enforcement authorities\u2019 actions unsubstantiated.<\/p>\n
THE LAW<\/p>\n
In the present application, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the complaint is inadmissible.<\/p>\n
In particular, the Court notes that the Government submitted that the judgment of 23 March 2004 of Administrative Economic Court No. 1 was quashed by the Supreme Court\u2019s final judgment of 28 October 2004. In his observations in reply to the Government\u2019s observations, the applicant did not comment on this particular issue, having submitted only his claims for just satisfaction to the Court.<\/p>\n
The Court notes that in the present case the applicant complained to the Court about the non-enforcement of a judgment which had subsequently been quashed. In view of the above, the Court considers that the applicant does not have an enforceable and final judgment adopted in his favour and cannot complain of the non-enforcement of the judgment. It follows that this application is incompatible ratione personae 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 of the Convention.<\/p>\n
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,<\/p>\n
Declares the application inadmissible.<\/p>\n
Done in English and notified in writing on 7 February 2019.<\/p>\n
Liv TigerstedtS\u00edofra O\u2019Leary
\nActing Deputy RegistrarPresident<\/p>\n