I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in HUSEYNOV v. AZERBAIJAN.

Information

  • Judgment date: 2022-11-10
  • Communication date: 2015-01-19
  • Application number(s): 22730/12
  • Country:   AZE
  • Relevant ECHR article(s): 6, 6-1, 13, P1-1
  • Conclusion:
    Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment)
  • Result: Violation
  • SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

  • Probability: 0.563048
  • Prediction: Violation
  • Consistent


Legend

 In line with the court's judgment
 In opposition to the court's judgment
Darker color: higher probability
: In line with the court's judgment  
: In opposition to the court's judgment

Communication text used for prediction

The applicant, Mr Eldar Huseynov, is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1941 and lives in Sumgayit.
He is represented before the Court by Mr F. Ağayev, a lawyer practising in Azerbaijan.
The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1.
Demolition of the applicant’s flat In April 2007 the applicant purchased a one-room flat with a total area of 28 sq.
m. at 28 Fizuli Street in Baku for 130,350 Azerbaijani new manats (AZN).
On 12 May 2008 the flat was registered in the applicant’s ownership by the State Register of Immovable Property.
In the beginning of 2010 officials of the Baku City Executive Authority (“the BCEA”) contacted the residents of a number of residential buildings in the area where the applicant’s flat was located, notifying them that the properties in the area in question were to be expropriated for State needs and demolished with the purpose of building an urban park.
The expropriation was conducted on the basis of the BCEA order no.
511 of 24 September 2008 (not available in the case file).
The order also authorised conclusion of a contract with a private individual, R.K., giving him authority to negotiate, on behalf of the BCEA, with the residents of the area with the purpose of payment of compensation to them.
With that aim, the BCEA transferred into R.K.’s personal bank account an unspecified amount of money received originally from the State Oil Fund and designated for compensation of relocated residents.
The compensation was fixed by the BCEA in the amount of AZN 1,500 per sq.
m., for all properties located in the area.
In response to complaints by the residents, in a letter of 7 April 2010 (not available in the file), an official of the BCEA informed the residents that the original basis for the expropriation was the decision of 30 August 1989 of the Executive Committee of the Baku City Soviet of People’s Deputies envisaging construction of a park in the area in question in accordance with the General Development Plan of Baku.
The officials of the BCEA and the Nasimi District Police Office began the demolition works in the area in mid-April 2010.
In particular, at this stage, among others things, they removed the outside shutters of the door and windows of the applicant’s flat.
In the meantime, the applicant was offered AZN 1,500 per sq.
m. in compensation, an amount which he refused to accept as he deemed it to be far less than the actual market value of the flat.
In September 2010, while the judicial proceedings were still pending (see below), the applicant’s flat was completely demolished.
2.
First set of proceedings On 20 April 2010 the applicant lodged an action with the Nasimi District Court, against the BCEA, the Nasimi District Executive Authority and the Nasimi District Police Office.
He argued that the authorities’ actions were unlawful and that the interference with his property rights was in breach of the requirements of the Constitution, the Civil Code and the Housing Code concerning the inviolability of private property and the procedures for expropriation and State purchase of private property, as well as the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.
1 to the Convention.
He sought a ruling from the court ordering inter alia that the defendants stop their unlawful actions, restore his property to its previous condition and pay him AZN 15,000 in compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages inflicted up to that point.
The BCEA lodged a counter-claim, asking the court to annul the applicant’s ownership right and documents certifying it.
The BCEA argued that the original privatisation of the flat by its previous owner in 2007 had been unlawful because, in the BCEA’s opinion, it was contrary to a decision of the Soviet of Ministers of the Azerbaijan SSR issued in 1987 approving the General Development Plan of Baku and designating the area in question as a “relocation area”.
The BCEA argued that, therefore, the applicant wrongfully owned an “unlawfully privatised flat”.
It further requested the court to order the applicant’s relocation from the current flat, on the condition that the authorities’ provide him another accommodation.
On 17 May 2010 the applicant lodged a request with the court, asking inter alia to admit as evidence an expert evaluation report of 17 April 2010, which estimated the current market value of his flat at AZN 152,000.
He noted that this evidence was important in view of the fact that the BCEA was offering him only AZN 1,500 per sq.
m. While the case was still pending before the Nasimi District Court, in September 2010 the applicant’s flat was demolished (see above).
Following this, on 27 September 2010 the applicant updated his original claim, increasing his claim in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages to AZN 500,000.
On 27 September 2010 the Nasimi District Court delivered its judgment.
The court dismissed the part of the BCEA’s counter-claim seeking the annulment of the applicant’s ownership right, finding that the time-limit for challenging the lawfulness of the original privatisation had expired.
However, it upheld the part of the counter-claim concerning the request for the applicant’s forced eviction to a new accommodation provided by the BCEA, reasoning that, since the applicant refused to accept the monetary compensation offered (AZN 1,500 per sq.
m.), the only other option was to give him another accommodation instead.
As to the applicant’s claims, the court rejected them, finding firstly that the BCEA’s and the other defendants’ actions could not be considered under domestic law as “interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of his possessions” and that the court did not see how any action by the defendants had violated the applicant’s rights or freedoms.
Secondly, the court found that the applicant had failed to prove that he had suffered any pecuniary or non‐pecuniary damage.
In view of the above findings, the court ordered that the applicant be evicted and provided with a new flat of the same size and equivalent conditions.
The applicant appealed, reiterating his claims and arguments, maintaining that the BCEA had no competence under the domestic law to expropriate private property, and arguing that the first-instance court had failed to properly apply the relevant domestic law and that its interpretation of the law was manifestly wrong.
On 27 January 2010 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s judgment.
The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court.
By a decision of 22 June 2011 the Supreme Court granted the applicant’s appeal, quashed the Baku Court of Appeal’s judgment of 27 January 2010 and remitted the case.
The Supreme Court found inter alia that the appellate court had failed to correctly apply the domestic law and had failed to assess the defendants’ actions as an unlawful and unjustified interference with the applicant’s rights within the meaning of the relevant provisions of the domestic law and the Convention.
By a judgment of 14 October 2011 the Baku Court of Appeal partially granted the applicant’s claim, finding that there had been an unlawful interference by the defendants with this property rights.
However, since the property had already been demolished, the court found that it was not possible to restore it to its previous condition and that, therefore, the applicant should be paid compensation for pecuniary damage.
Taking as the basis the BCEA’s initial offer of compensation, the court ordered that the applicant should be paid AZN 1,500 per sq.
m., for a total amount of AZN 42,000.
The court dismissed the applicant’s claim in respect of non‐pecuniary damage, finding that he had failed to substantiate it.
The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, reiterating his previous arguments and complaining that, despite the legal requirement for compensation to correspond to the market value of the property and despite the existence of clear evidence showing that the market value of his flat was much higher than the amount proposed by the BCEA, the appellate court based its award on the amount of compensation fixed by the BCEA in an unlawful and arbitrary manner.
By a decision of 21 February 2012 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal, agreeing with the Baku Court of Appeal’s finding that the amount of AZN 42,000 constituted a “fair and reasonable” compensation and finding that the expert report of 17 April 2010, relied on by the applicant, had not been duly signed by the expert.
3.
Second set of proceedings In the meantime, following the demolition of the flat and before the final decision in the above proceedings, the applicant and his family found themselves in a difficult financial situation.
Therefore, according to the applicant, he had no choice but to conclude, on 14 December 2010, a sale contract with R.K. who formally purchased the already-demolished flat from him.
The applicant was paid AZN 42,000 pursuant to the contract.
On 11 January 2011 the applicant lodged an action with the Nasimi District Court, against R.K. and the BCEA, seeking annulment of the sale contract of 14 December 2010, arguing that it was a contract concluded in bad faith, whereby R.K., being the agent of the BCEA which had abused its authority by unlawfully interfering with the applicant’s property rights, had taken advantage of the applicant’s situation and had forced him to accept extremely unfavourable terms.
The applicant asked the court to declare the contract invalid, to order the restitution of the flat, and to order the defendants to pay him AZN 250,000 for pecuniary damage and AZN 100,000 for non-pecuniary damage.
By a judgment of 1 March 2011 the Nasimi District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim as unsubstantiated.
On 12 May 2011 and 13 October 2011, respectively, the Baku Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeals.
COMPLAINTS 1.
The applicant complains under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention that both sets of proceedings were unfair, that the domestic courts were not independent and did not constitute an effective remedy, and that their judgments and decisions were unreasoned because they failed to apply the legal provisions clearly applicable to his case.
He also complained that the first set of proceedings did not comply with the “reasonable time” requirement.
2.
The applicant complains under Article of Protocol No.
1 to the Convention that there was an unlawful and unjustified interference with his possessions.

Judgment

THIRD SECTION
CASE OF MIKHAYLOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos.
47557/12 and 3 others –
see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG
10 November 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Mikhaylov and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Andreas Zünd,
Frédéric Krenc, judges,and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 20 October 2022,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1.
The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS
3.
The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4. The applicants complained about their confinement in metal cages before the court during the criminal proceedings against them. THE LAW
5.
Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. 6. The applicants complained about their confinement in metal cages before the court during the criminal proceedings against them. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
Article 3
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
7.
The Court notes that the applicants were kept in metal cages before the court in the context of their trials. In the leading cases of Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts) and Vorontsov and Others v. Russia, no. 59655/14 and 2 others, 31 January 2017, the Court already dealt with the issue of the use of metal cages in courtrooms and found that such a practice constituted in itself an affront to human dignity and amounted to degrading treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention. Similar finding was reached by the Court in respect of the practice of confinement of defendants in metal cages at remand prisons for the purposes of their participation in court hearings carried out via a video link (see Karachentsev v. Russia, no. 23229/11, §§ 50-54, 17 April 2018). 8. 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 on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicants’ confinement in metal cages before the court during the criminal proceedings against them amounted to degrading treatment. 9. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention. 10. The applicants further complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention in relation to their placement in a metal cage before a court. 11. Having regard to the facts of the cases, the submissions of the parties, and its findings above, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal question raised in the present applications and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the remaining complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014). 12. 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.”
13.
Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‐law (see, in particular, Vorontsov and Others, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. 14. The Court further considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(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;
Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 November 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli
Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
(use of metal cages in courtrooms)
No.
Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth

Representative’s name and location
Name of the court
Date of the relevant judgment
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant
(in euros)[1]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros)[2]
47557/12
18/06/2012
Nikolay Nikolayevich MIKHAYLOV
1989
Druzhkova Olga Vladimirovna
Moscow
The Supreme Court of Russia
09/04/2012
7,500
-
8229/15
26/01/2015
Mikhail Aleksandrovich TIMOFEYEV
1966
Zykov Andrey Leonidovich
Khabarovsk
Khabarovsk Regional Court
01/08/2014
7,500
950
55766/15
02/11/2015
Ilnar Klimovich GILYAZETDINOV
1976
Khammatova Darya Mikhaylovna
Kazan
Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan
19/05/2015
7,500
1,000
5440/16
14/01/2016
Khalid Adamovich AZMATGIRIYEV
1983
Shukhardin Valeriy Vladimirovich
Moscow
Moscow City Court
13/08/2015
7,500
-

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. THIRD SECTION
CASE OF MIKHAYLOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
(Applications nos.
47557/12 and 3 others –
see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG
10 November 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Mikhaylov and Others v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President,
Andreas Zünd,
Frédéric Krenc, judges,and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 20 October 2022,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1.
The case originated in applications against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS
3.
The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4. The applicants complained about their confinement in metal cages before the court during the criminal proceedings against them. THE LAW
5.
Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. 6. The applicants complained about their confinement in metal cages before the court during the criminal proceedings against them. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
Article 3
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
7.
The Court notes that the applicants were kept in metal cages before the court in the context of their trials. In the leading cases of Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts) and Vorontsov and Others v. Russia, no. 59655/14 and 2 others, 31 January 2017, the Court already dealt with the issue of the use of metal cages in courtrooms and found that such a practice constituted in itself an affront to human dignity and amounted to degrading treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention. Similar finding was reached by the Court in respect of the practice of confinement of defendants in metal cages at remand prisons for the purposes of their participation in court hearings carried out via a video link (see Karachentsev v. Russia, no. 23229/11, §§ 50-54, 17 April 2018). 8. 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 on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicants’ confinement in metal cages before the court during the criminal proceedings against them amounted to degrading treatment. 9. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention. 10. The applicants further complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention in relation to their placement in a metal cage before a court. 11. Having regard to the facts of the cases, the submissions of the parties, and its findings above, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal question raised in the present applications and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the remaining complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014). 12. 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.”
13.
Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‐law (see, in particular, Vorontsov and Others, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. 14. The Court further considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(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;
Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 November 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli
Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
(use of metal cages in courtrooms)
No.
Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth

Representative’s name and location
Name of the court
Date of the relevant judgment
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant
(in euros)[1]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros)[2]
47557/12
18/06/2012
Nikolay Nikolayevich MIKHAYLOV
1989
Druzhkova Olga Vladimirovna
Moscow
The Supreme Court of Russia
09/04/2012
7,500
-
8229/15
26/01/2015
Mikhail Aleksandrovich TIMOFEYEV
1966
Zykov Andrey Leonidovich
Khabarovsk
Khabarovsk Regional Court
01/08/2014
7,500
950
55766/15
02/11/2015
Ilnar Klimovich GILYAZETDINOV
1976
Khammatova Darya Mikhaylovna
Kazan
Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan
19/05/2015
7,500
1,000
5440/16
14/01/2016
Khalid Adamovich AZMATGIRIYEV
1983
Shukhardin Valeriy Vladimirovich
Moscow
Moscow City Court
13/08/2015
7,500
-

No.
Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth

Representative’s name and location
Name of the court
Date of the relevant judgment
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant
(in euros)[1]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros)[2]
47557/12
18/06/2012
Nikolay Nikolayevich MIKHAYLOV
1989
Druzhkova Olga Vladimirovna
Moscow
The Supreme Court of Russia
09/04/2012
7,500
-
8229/15
26/01/2015
Mikhail Aleksandrovich TIMOFEYEV
1966
Zykov Andrey Leonidovich
Khabarovsk
Khabarovsk Regional Court
01/08/2014
7,500
950
55766/15
02/11/2015
Ilnar Klimovich GILYAZETDINOV
1976
Khammatova Darya Mikhaylovna
Kazan
Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan
19/05/2015
7,500
1,000
5440/16
14/01/2016
Khalid Adamovich AZMATGIRIYEV
1983
Shukhardin Valeriy Vladimirovich
Moscow
Moscow City Court
13/08/2015
7,500
-
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.