I incorrectly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in HUSEYNOV v. AZERBAIJAN.
Information
- Judgment date: 2025-01-14
- Communication date: 2015-01-19
- Application number(s): 22730/12
- Country: AZE
- Relevant ECHR article(s): 6, 6-1, 13, P1-1
- Conclusion:
Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage
Just satisfaction)
Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage
Just satisfaction)
Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage
Just satisfaction) - Result: No violation SEE FINAL JUDGMENT
JURI Prediction
- Probability: 0.720903
- Prediction: Violation
Inconsistent
Legend
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.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.
Has the applicant been deprived of his possessions in the public interest, in accordance with the conditions provided for by law and in accordance with the principles of international law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.
1?
What were the substantive and procedural conditions (including the conditions in respect of the compensation to be paid) required by the applicable law for the deprivation of property to be lawful, and were those conditions complied with in the present case?
What was the legal basis for the relevant authorities’ actions aimed at alienating the applicant’s private property?
How was the amount of compensation (offered to the applicant and other affected individuals) determined in the present case and what was the legal basis for fixing the compensation in such manner?
2.
In both sets of proceedings, did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
Was the applicant’s right to a reasoned decision respected?
3.
The Government are requested to provide copies of the following: (1) the 1987 decision of the Soviet of Ministers of the Azerbaijan SSR and the General Development Plan of Baku adopted by that decision; (2) the decision of 30 August 1989 of the Executive Committee of the Baku City Soviet of People’s Deputies; (3) the Baku City Executive Authority (“the BCEA”) order no.
511 of 24 September 2008; (4) the formal decision authorising the conclusion of a contract between the BCEA and Mr Rufan Habil oglu Kazimov, and a copy of that contract; (5) all other documents, decisions, orders and letters relating to the expropriation and demolition of residential and other buildings in the area where the applicant’s flat was located.
4.
The parties are also requested to submit copies of: (1) the title document confirming the registration of the flat in the applicant’s ownership by the State Register of Immovable Property on 12 May 2008; and (2) the sale and purchase contract concluded between the applicant and Mr Rufan Habil oglu Kazimov.
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 SECTIONCASE OF BAGVANOV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
(Applications nos. 77919/11 and 13 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT(Just satisfaction)
STRASBOURG
14 January 2025
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Bagvanov and Others v. Azerbaijan,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President, Lətif Hüseynov, Úna Ní Raifeartaigh, judges,and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 3 December 2024,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The applications mainly concerned the applicants’ complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about an allegedly unlawful expropriation of their properties by the State authorities. 2. In a judgment delivered on 10 November 2022 (“the principal judgment”), the Court held that the expropriation of the applicants’ properties had not been carried out in compliance with “conditions provided for by law” and that there had accordingly been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Bagvanov and Others v. Azerbaijan [Committee], nos. 77919/11 and 13 others, §§ 17-18, and point 4 of the operative provisions, 10 November 2022). It also held that there had been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention in respect of four applications (nos. 73555/12, 81486/12, 5192/13 and 51850/14) as the final domestic decisions had not been enforced, and that it was not necessary to examine the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints (ibid., §§ 21 and 23, and points 5-6 of the operative provisions). 3. Under Article 41 of the Convention, the applicants sought just satisfaction. 4. Since the question of the application of Article 41 of the Convention was not ready for decision, the Court reserved it and invited the Government and the applicants 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., § 25, and point 7 of the operative provisions). The Court also requested the parties to provide a duly substantiated valuation of the applicants’ properties in accordance with the principles enumerated in Akhverdiyev v. Azerbaijan ((just satisfaction), no. 76254/11, §§ 33-37, 21 March 2019), in case they failed to settle the matter. 5. The applicant and the Government each filed observations, which were transmitted to the other party for comments. 6. Following the delivery of the principal judgment, the applicants’ representative submitted that:
(i) Ms Intizar Allahverdiyeva had died on 4 September 2019, and that her sisters, Ms Zarina Allahverdiyeva, Ms Zarifa Allahverdiyeva, Ms Elmira Allahverdiyeva, and Ms Narmina Allahverdiyeva, had expressed their wish to pursue the application in the deceased applicant’s stead;
(ii) Mr Parviz Amirov had died on 9 November 2020, and that his son, Mr Nazim Azimov, had expressed his wish to pursue the application in the deceased applicant’s stead; and
(iii) Ms Minakhanim Azimova had died on 30 January 2022, and that her son, Mr Rufat Aliyev, and daughter, Ms Sonakhanim Aliyeva, had expressed their wish to pursue the application in the deceased applicant’s stead. 7. The Government did not submit any comments in respect of the above‐mentioned submissions. THE LAW
8. Having regard to its case-law on the matter (compare Bittó and Others v. Slovakia (just satisfaction), no. 30255/09, § 7, 7 July 2015, with further references), the Court accepts that: (i) Ms Zarina Allahverdiyeva, Ms Zarifa Allahverdiyeva, Ms Elmira Allahverdiyeva, and Ms Narmina Allahverdiyeva have a legitimate interest in pursuing application no. 44972/12 in Ms Intizar Allahverdiyeva’s stead; (ii) Mr Nazim Azimov has a legitimate interest in pursuing application no. 56371/12 in Mr Parviz Amirov’s stead; and (iii) Mr Rufat Aliyev and Ms Sonakhanim Aliyeva have a legitimate interest in pursuing application no. 57685/12 in Ms Minakhanim Azimova’s stead. 9. 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.”
10. The applicants claimed various amounts in respect of pecuniary damage comprising compensation for (i) their properties, (ii) plots of land underlying and/or attached to them, and (iii) lost or damaged possessions. They also submitted that they should be paid an additional 20% compensation under Presidential Decree no. 689 of 26 December 2007 and an additional 10% compensation (“compensation for hardship”) under Article 66 of the Law on the Expropriation of Land for State Needs (see Aliyeva and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 66249/16 and 6 others, §§ 69-70, 21 September 2021). The applicant in application no. 77919/11 also claimed an unspecified amount in respect of lost profit, alleging that he earned 3,000 euros (EUR) per month by leasing non-residential buildings. The remaining applicants also submitted, without specifying the amounts, that adjustments for inflation and interest should be awarded. 11. In their observations following the delivery of the principal judgment, some applicants partly amended their claims (see the appended table). Following the delivery of the principal judgment, the Court requested the parties to provide a duly substantiated valuation of the applicants’ properties in accordance with the principles enumerated in Akhverdiyev v. Azerbaijan ((just satisfaction), no. 76254/11, §§ 33-37, 21 March 2019), in case the parties failed to settle the matter. The applicants did not present any such valuation. They relied, instead, on expert opinions (applications nos. 9310/12, 22730/12, 44972/12, 81494/12 and 51850/14) or letters from a private company indicating the market value of their properties or similar properties, which had been presented before the domestic courts and/or submitted together with their applications or initial just satisfaction claims before the Court. 12. The Government provided an expert valuation in respect of all the properties concerned, which estimated their market value (including the value of the plot of land, as well as lost profit in application no. 77919/11) together with adjustments. The Government submitted that since the applicant in application no. 56371/12 had received adequate compensation at the material time, his claim should be dismissed. 13. The applicants submitted that the valuation presented by the Government was “totally unacceptable”. The applicant in application no. 77919/11 also argued that the estimated amount had not been calculated for the total surface area of his house. 14. The Court firstly refers to its findings in the principal judgment (paragraphs 9-14) concerning the applicants’ possessions. In particular, it held that the flats or houses or parts of them, as indicated in the ownership documents (see the appended table), constituted the applicants’ “possessions”. As to the claims of some applicants concerning the plot of land underlying their properties and/or attached to them, the Court held only in application no. 77919/11 that the plot of land in question constituted the applicant’s “possession” and dismissed the claims of the remaining applicants in that regard. It also rejected three applicants’ complaints in respect of lost or damaged possessions (see paragraph 19 of the principal judgment). Consequently, the parts of the claims concerning plots of land underlying the applicants’ properties and/or attached to them, except the claim of the applicant in application no. 77919/11, and lost or damaged possessions should be dismissed. 15. As to the applicants’ claims concerning the additional 20% compensation and compensation for hardship, the Court notes that the applicants, except the applicant in application no. 81494/12, who had claimed the additional 20% compensation only, had not raised the issue of the applicability of the relevant provisions (see paragraph 10 above) in their claims before the domestic courts. Nor had they, including the applicant in application no. 81494/12, whose claim was dismissed by the domestic courts, raised, or otherwise argued that issue in their applications submitted to the Court. Accordingly, having regard to these circumstances and the fact that the Court was not given an opportunity to determine whether the applicants had a legitimate expectation under domestic law as to the additional compensation claimed, which is a question related to the admissibility and merits of the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, these parts of the claims should also be dismissed (compare Akhverdiyev, cited above, § 31). 16. As to the compensation for the properties in question, the Court considers that the assessment of pecuniary damage in this case should be based on the principles adopted in Guiso-Gallisay v. Italy ((just satisfaction) [GC], no. 58858/00, 22 December 2009) and reiterated in Akhverdiyev (cited above, § 33). 17. In this connection, the Court firstly notes that the letters from the private company referred to by the applicants merely provided estimated values and lacked any explanation of the methodology used or any references to previous expert opinions or to any other data relied on. They cannot therefore constitute an expert report for the purposes of valuation of the damage (compare Maharramov v. Azerbaijan (just satisfaction), no. 5046/07, §§ 17 and 19, 9 May 2019). As to the expert reports concerning the properties in applications nos. 9310/12, 22730/12, 44972/12, 81494/12 and 51850/14, while those reports provided information about the market value of the properties at the time the applicants were deprived of them, no information or supporting documents were submitted by the applicants concerning necessary adjustments required by the principles enumerated in Akhverdiyev (cited above, § 33), despite the Court’s explicit request in that regard (see paragraph 11 above). 18. The Court reiterates that it is for applicants to show that pecuniary damage has resulted from the violation or violations alleged. Applicants should submit relevant documents to prove, as far as possible, not only the existence but also the amount or value of the damage (see, for example, Vasilevski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 22653/08, § 66, 28 April 2016). 19. Moreover, 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 submit written observations, in the latter case to ensure that the application of Article 41 is ready for decision (see Maharramov, cited above, § 19). 20. In view of the above-mentioned principles and the circumstances of the present case, the Court finds it more appropriate to proceed on the basis of the valuation submitted by the Government. Notwithstanding this, the Court notes the following issues which necessitate certain adjustments. 21. The Court firstly observes that the total surface area of the applicant’s house in application no. 77919/11 was not correctly indicated (in accordance with the ownership documents) in the valuation report. Moreover, in applications nos. 73555/12, 81486/12, 5192/13 and 51850/14 the expert did not take into account the sums which had been awarded to the applicants by the domestic courts but remained partly or fully unpaid to date. While stressing that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to enforce relevant final domestic judgments which remain enforceable, the Court considers that those amounts should be subtracted from the pecuniary awards to be made in the present judgment. 22. Having regard to the above considerations, the Court awards the applicants, except the applicant in application no. 56371/12, the amounts indicated in the appended table plus any tax that may be chargeable on those amounts. 23. As to the applicant in application no. 56371/12, the Court observes that, according to the valuation report submitted by the Government, the market value of the applicant’s flat was 26,782 Azerbaijani manats (AZN). It appears from the case file that the applicant received AZN 31,995 for his flat at the relevant time. While the applicant claimed pecuniary damage, he failed to provide any valuation in support of the amount claimed. In such circumstances, the Court rejects his claim under this head. 24. The applicants claimed various amounts in respect of non-pecuniary damage (see the appended table). 25. The Government submitted that the amounts claimed were excessive. 26. Ruling on an equitable basis, as required by Article 41 of the Convention, the Court awards each applicant the sum of EUR 4,700 under this head for the violation of Article 6 of the Convention (non-enforcement of final judgments) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount. 27. Ruling on an equitable basis, as required by Article 41 of the Convention, the Court awards each applicant (or household, where appropriate) the sum of EUR 3,000 under this head, for the violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount. 28. The applicants claimed various amounts in respect of costs and expenses (see the appended table). The applicant in application no. 77919/11 submitted two receipts of payments made for legal services provided at the domestic level. Some applicants also submitted receipts for postal expenses. 29. The Government submitted that the costs claimed for legal services were exaggerated and that no evidence substantiating the actual expenses had been presented by the applicants. 30. The Court reiterates that under Rule 60 of the Rules of Court, all claims for just satisfaction must be itemised and submitted in writing together with any relevant supporting documents, failing which the Court may reject the claim in whole or in part. 31. Having regard to the documents provided by the applicant in application no. 77919/11, the Court awards him EUR 110 for the legal services rendered before the domestic courts. As to the remaining applicants, who were represented by the same lawyer, the Court notes that they failed to submit a copy of a contract for legal services or any other document in support of their claims. It therefore dismisses their claims in this part. 32. As to the part of the claims concerning postal expenses, the Court awards the amounts indicated in the appended table to the applicants who have provided the relevant supporting documents and dismisses the claims in applications where no documents have been submitted. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) Ms Zarina Allahverdiyeva, Ms Zarifa Allahverdiyeva, Ms Elmira Allahverdiyeva, and Ms Narmina Allahverdiyeva have a legitimate interest in pursuing application no. 44972/12 in Ms Intizar Allahverdiyeva’s stead;
(b) Mr Nazim Azimov has a legitimate interest in pursuing application no. 56371/12 in Mr Parviz Amirov’s stead; and
(c) Mr Rufat Aliyev and Ms Sonakhanim Aliyeva have a legitimate interest in pursuing application no. 57685/12 in Ms Minakhanim Azimova’s stead;
(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 14 January 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Olga Chernishova Darian Pavli Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications
No. Application no. Lodged on
Applicant’s name
year of birth
place of residence
Type and size of property (according to the ownership documents)
Compensation awarded/paid at the domestic level
Updated just satisfaction claims
Amounts awarded by the Court
1. 77919/11
22/11/2011
Ismayil Aliheydar oglu BAGVANOV
1956
Baku
A house of 95.6 sq. m + buildings of 29.1 sq. m + a garage of 20 sq. m located on a plot of land of 0.0232 ha
AZN 187,050 for pecuniary damage awarded by the courts;
AZN 217,050 paid under the contract
EUR 2,552,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 770,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
EUR 11,000 for costs and expenses. EUR 370,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
EUR 125 for costs and expenses. 2. 9310/12
14/02/2012
Darya Stanislavna GULIYEVA
1979
Baku
A flat of 105 sq. m
AZN 157,500 for pecuniary damage + AZN 2,000 for non-pecuniary damage awarded by the courts
EUR 700,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 300,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
AZN 7,000 for legal services and AZN 200 for postal expenses. EUR 98,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
EUR 84 for costs and expenses. 3. 22730/12
12/04/2012
Eldar Asgar oglu HUSEYNOV
1942
Sumgayit
A flat of 28 sq. m
AZN 42,000 for pecuniary damage awarded by the courts
EUR 700,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 120,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
EUR 6,000 in respect of legal services and EUR 200 for postal expenses. EUR 46,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
EUR 48 for costs and expenses. 4. 37786/12
18/06/2012
Kamala Israfil gizi ALIYEVA
1965
Baku
Two rooms of 39.1 sq. m in a flat
AZN 58,650 paid under the contract
EUR 500,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 200,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
EUR 5,000 for legal services and AZN 200 for postal expenses. EUR 28,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
EUR 33 for costs and expenses. 5. 44972/12
18/07/2012
Intizar Karim gizi ALLAHVERDIYEVA
1953
Baku
Deceased: 2019
1⁄2 of a flat of 68 sq. m
AZN 51,000 paid under the contract
EUR 300,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 100,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
AZN 5,000 for legal services and AZN 70 for postal expenses. EUR 156,000 jointly to the applicants in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 3,000 jointly to the applicants in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
EUR 26 for costs and expenses to the first applicant only. Zarifa Karim gizi ALLAHVERDIYEVA
1959
Baku
1⁄2 of the same flat
AZN 51,000 paid under the contract
EUR 300,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 100,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
AZN 3,500 for legal services. 6. 56371/12
31/08/2012
Parviz Mukhtar oglu AMIROV
1969
Baku
Deceased: 2020
One room of 12.5 sq. m in a flat
AZN 31,995 paid under the contract
EUR 82,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 70,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
AZN 7,000 for legal services and AZN 110 for postal expenses. EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
EUR 51 for costs and expenses. 7. 57685/12
06/09/2012
Minakhanim Agasalim gizi AZIMOVA
1946
Baku
Deceased: 2022
Two rooms of 34 sq. m in a flat
AZN 90,000 paid under the contract
EUR 360,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 120,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
AZN 5,000 for legal services and AZN 100 for postal expenses. EUR 65,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
EUR 26 for costs and expenses. Mehriban Imanali gizi ALIYEVA
1969
Baku
A flat of 29 sq. m
AZN 43,500 paid under the contract
EUR 200,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 70,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
AZN 5,000 for legal services. EUR 88,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Valeriya Vitalyevna MAHMUDOVA
1966
Baku
A flat of 61 sq. m
AZN 91,500 paid under the contract
EUR 320,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 100,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
AZN 7,000 for legal services and AZN 200 for postal expenses. EUR 122,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Rugiya Astan gizi MAMMAD
1957
Baku
Four rooms in a flat of 101.5 sq. m
AZN 134,250 paid under the contract
EUR 500,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 150,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
AZN 7,000 for legal services. EUR 155,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Saadat Mughdat gizi AZIZOVA
1969
Baku
One room of 12 sq. m
AZN 18,000 paid under the contract
EUR 100,000 in respect of for pecuniary damage;
EUR 70,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
AZN 7,000 for legal services. EUR 8,300 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 8. 61516/12
24/09/2012
Fuad Tofig oglu ALIYEV
1968
Baku
11/12 of a house (no information is available about the size of the house)
AZN 68,887 paid under the contract
EUR 600,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 200,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
EUR 5,000 for legal services and AZN 70 for postal expenses. EUR 30,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
EUR 26 for costs and expenses. 9. 73555/12
16/11/2012
Yasaman Gurban gizi KARIMOVA
1951
Baku
A flat of 65 sq. m + basement of 16.1 sq. m
AZN 145,980 for pecuniary damage and AZN 1,000 for non-pecuniary damage awarded by the courts,
but paid AZN 121,650 only under the contract
EUR 370,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 100,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
AZN 10,500 for legal services and AZN 200 for postal expenses. EUR 136,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 4,700 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
EUR 81 for costs and expenses. 10. 81486/12
19/12/2012
Flora Davidovna GADIROVA
1966
Baku
One room of 14.7 sq. m in a flat
AZN 22,500 awarded by the courts but not paid
EUR 100,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 50,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
AZN 3,500 for legal services. EUR 7,100 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 4,700 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
EUR 26 for costs and expenses. 11. 81494/12
20/12/2012
Rukhsara Suleyman gizi HUSEYNOVA
1944
Baku
A flat of 172 sq. m
AZN 259,500 paid under the contract
EUR 1,600,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 300,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
AZN 5,000 for legal services and AZN 100 for postal expenses. EUR 106,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
EUR 41 for costs and expenses. 12. 5192/13
28/12/2012
Afag Adil gizi ISMAYILOVA
1958
Baku
A flat of 107.5 sq. m
AZN 193,500 for pecuniary damage and AZN 2,500 for non-pecuniary damage awarded by the courts, but not paid
EUR 1,500,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 500,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
AZN 10,500 for legal services and AZN 200 for postal expenses. EUR 117,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 4,700 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
EUR 41 for costs and expenses. 13. 13579/13
22/02/2013
Shirinbaji Ibrahim gizi RZAYEVA
1953
Baku
1/3 of a flat of 41.3 sq. m
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
EUR 60,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 50,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
AZN 7,000 for legal services. EUR 12,000 jointly to the applicants in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 3,000 jointly to the applicants in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
EUR 58 for costs and expenses to the first applicant only. Ali Mukhtar oglu RZA
1976
Baku
1/3 of the same flat
EUR 60,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 50,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
AZN 7,000 for legal services. 14. 51850/14
15/07/2014
Lilya Asadulla gizi ALIYEVA
1943
Baku
A flat of 190.8 sq. m
AZN 286,200 paid under the contract;
AZN 57,240 awarded by the courts but not paid
EUR 1,500,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 300,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
AZN 5,000 for legal services and AZN 70 for postal expenses. EUR 88,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 4,700 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
EUR 26 for costs and expenses. THIRD SECTION
CASE OF BAGVANOV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
(Applications nos. 77919/11 and 13 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT(Just satisfaction)
STRASBOURG
14 January 2025
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Bagvanov and Others v. Azerbaijan,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli, President, Lətif Hüseynov, Úna Ní Raifeartaigh, judges,and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 3 December 2024,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The applications mainly concerned the applicants’ complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about an allegedly unlawful expropriation of their properties by the State authorities. 2. In a judgment delivered on 10 November 2022 (“the principal judgment”), the Court held that the expropriation of the applicants’ properties had not been carried out in compliance with “conditions provided for by law” and that there had accordingly been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Bagvanov and Others v. Azerbaijan [Committee], nos. 77919/11 and 13 others, §§ 17-18, and point 4 of the operative provisions, 10 November 2022). It also held that there had been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention in respect of four applications (nos. 73555/12, 81486/12, 5192/13 and 51850/14) as the final domestic decisions had not been enforced, and that it was not necessary to examine the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints (ibid., §§ 21 and 23, and points 5-6 of the operative provisions). 3. Under Article 41 of the Convention, the applicants sought just satisfaction. 4. Since the question of the application of Article 41 of the Convention was not ready for decision, the Court reserved it and invited the Government and the applicants 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., § 25, and point 7 of the operative provisions). The Court also requested the parties to provide a duly substantiated valuation of the applicants’ properties in accordance with the principles enumerated in Akhverdiyev v. Azerbaijan ((just satisfaction), no. 76254/11, §§ 33-37, 21 March 2019), in case they failed to settle the matter. 5. The applicant and the Government each filed observations, which were transmitted to the other party for comments. 6. Following the delivery of the principal judgment, the applicants’ representative submitted that:
(i) Ms Intizar Allahverdiyeva had died on 4 September 2019, and that her sisters, Ms Zarina Allahverdiyeva, Ms Zarifa Allahverdiyeva, Ms Elmira Allahverdiyeva, and Ms Narmina Allahverdiyeva, had expressed their wish to pursue the application in the deceased applicant’s stead;
(ii) Mr Parviz Amirov had died on 9 November 2020, and that his son, Mr Nazim Azimov, had expressed his wish to pursue the application in the deceased applicant’s stead; and
(iii) Ms Minakhanim Azimova had died on 30 January 2022, and that her son, Mr Rufat Aliyev, and daughter, Ms Sonakhanim Aliyeva, had expressed their wish to pursue the application in the deceased applicant’s stead. 7. The Government did not submit any comments in respect of the above‐mentioned submissions. THE LAW
8. Having regard to its case-law on the matter (compare Bittó and Others v. Slovakia (just satisfaction), no. 30255/09, § 7, 7 July 2015, with further references), the Court accepts that: (i) Ms Zarina Allahverdiyeva, Ms Zarifa Allahverdiyeva, Ms Elmira Allahverdiyeva, and Ms Narmina Allahverdiyeva have a legitimate interest in pursuing application no. 44972/12 in Ms Intizar Allahverdiyeva’s stead; (ii) Mr Nazim Azimov has a legitimate interest in pursuing application no. 56371/12 in Mr Parviz Amirov’s stead; and (iii) Mr Rufat Aliyev and Ms Sonakhanim Aliyeva have a legitimate interest in pursuing application no. 57685/12 in Ms Minakhanim Azimova’s stead. 9. 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.”
10. The applicants claimed various amounts in respect of pecuniary damage comprising compensation for (i) their properties, (ii) plots of land underlying and/or attached to them, and (iii) lost or damaged possessions. They also submitted that they should be paid an additional 20% compensation under Presidential Decree no. 689 of 26 December 2007 and an additional 10% compensation (“compensation for hardship”) under Article 66 of the Law on the Expropriation of Land for State Needs (see Aliyeva and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 66249/16 and 6 others, §§ 69-70, 21 September 2021). The applicant in application no. 77919/11 also claimed an unspecified amount in respect of lost profit, alleging that he earned 3,000 euros (EUR) per month by leasing non-residential buildings. The remaining applicants also submitted, without specifying the amounts, that adjustments for inflation and interest should be awarded. 11. In their observations following the delivery of the principal judgment, some applicants partly amended their claims (see the appended table). Following the delivery of the principal judgment, the Court requested the parties to provide a duly substantiated valuation of the applicants’ properties in accordance with the principles enumerated in Akhverdiyev v. Azerbaijan ((just satisfaction), no. 76254/11, §§ 33-37, 21 March 2019), in case the parties failed to settle the matter. The applicants did not present any such valuation. They relied, instead, on expert opinions (applications nos. 9310/12, 22730/12, 44972/12, 81494/12 and 51850/14) or letters from a private company indicating the market value of their properties or similar properties, which had been presented before the domestic courts and/or submitted together with their applications or initial just satisfaction claims before the Court. 12. The Government provided an expert valuation in respect of all the properties concerned, which estimated their market value (including the value of the plot of land, as well as lost profit in application no. 77919/11) together with adjustments. The Government submitted that since the applicant in application no. 56371/12 had received adequate compensation at the material time, his claim should be dismissed. 13. The applicants submitted that the valuation presented by the Government was “totally unacceptable”. The applicant in application no. 77919/11 also argued that the estimated amount had not been calculated for the total surface area of his house. 14. The Court firstly refers to its findings in the principal judgment (paragraphs 9-14) concerning the applicants’ possessions. In particular, it held that the flats or houses or parts of them, as indicated in the ownership documents (see the appended table), constituted the applicants’ “possessions”. As to the claims of some applicants concerning the plot of land underlying their properties and/or attached to them, the Court held only in application no. 77919/11 that the plot of land in question constituted the applicant’s “possession” and dismissed the claims of the remaining applicants in that regard. It also rejected three applicants’ complaints in respect of lost or damaged possessions (see paragraph 19 of the principal judgment). Consequently, the parts of the claims concerning plots of land underlying the applicants’ properties and/or attached to them, except the claim of the applicant in application no. 77919/11, and lost or damaged possessions should be dismissed. 15. As to the applicants’ claims concerning the additional 20% compensation and compensation for hardship, the Court notes that the applicants, except the applicant in application no. 81494/12, who had claimed the additional 20% compensation only, had not raised the issue of the applicability of the relevant provisions (see paragraph 10 above) in their claims before the domestic courts. Nor had they, including the applicant in application no. 81494/12, whose claim was dismissed by the domestic courts, raised, or otherwise argued that issue in their applications submitted to the Court. Accordingly, having regard to these circumstances and the fact that the Court was not given an opportunity to determine whether the applicants had a legitimate expectation under domestic law as to the additional compensation claimed, which is a question related to the admissibility and merits of the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, these parts of the claims should also be dismissed (compare Akhverdiyev, cited above, § 31). 16. As to the compensation for the properties in question, the Court considers that the assessment of pecuniary damage in this case should be based on the principles adopted in Guiso-Gallisay v. Italy ((just satisfaction) [GC], no. 58858/00, 22 December 2009) and reiterated in Akhverdiyev (cited above, § 33). 17. In this connection, the Court firstly notes that the letters from the private company referred to by the applicants merely provided estimated values and lacked any explanation of the methodology used or any references to previous expert opinions or to any other data relied on. They cannot therefore constitute an expert report for the purposes of valuation of the damage (compare Maharramov v. Azerbaijan (just satisfaction), no. 5046/07, §§ 17 and 19, 9 May 2019). As to the expert reports concerning the properties in applications nos. 9310/12, 22730/12, 44972/12, 81494/12 and 51850/14, while those reports provided information about the market value of the properties at the time the applicants were deprived of them, no information or supporting documents were submitted by the applicants concerning necessary adjustments required by the principles enumerated in Akhverdiyev (cited above, § 33), despite the Court’s explicit request in that regard (see paragraph 11 above). 18. The Court reiterates that it is for applicants to show that pecuniary damage has resulted from the violation or violations alleged. Applicants should submit relevant documents to prove, as far as possible, not only the existence but also the amount or value of the damage (see, for example, Vasilevski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 22653/08, § 66, 28 April 2016). 19. Moreover, 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 submit written observations, in the latter case to ensure that the application of Article 41 is ready for decision (see Maharramov, cited above, § 19). 20. In view of the above-mentioned principles and the circumstances of the present case, the Court finds it more appropriate to proceed on the basis of the valuation submitted by the Government. Notwithstanding this, the Court notes the following issues which necessitate certain adjustments. 21. The Court firstly observes that the total surface area of the applicant’s house in application no. 77919/11 was not correctly indicated (in accordance with the ownership documents) in the valuation report. Moreover, in applications nos. 73555/12, 81486/12, 5192/13 and 51850/14 the expert did not take into account the sums which had been awarded to the applicants by the domestic courts but remained partly or fully unpaid to date. While stressing that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to enforce relevant final domestic judgments which remain enforceable, the Court considers that those amounts should be subtracted from the pecuniary awards to be made in the present judgment. 22. Having regard to the above considerations, the Court awards the applicants, except the applicant in application no. 56371/12, the amounts indicated in the appended table plus any tax that may be chargeable on those amounts. 23. As to the applicant in application no. 56371/12, the Court observes that, according to the valuation report submitted by the Government, the market value of the applicant’s flat was 26,782 Azerbaijani manats (AZN). It appears from the case file that the applicant received AZN 31,995 for his flat at the relevant time. While the applicant claimed pecuniary damage, he failed to provide any valuation in support of the amount claimed. In such circumstances, the Court rejects his claim under this head. 24. The applicants claimed various amounts in respect of non-pecuniary damage (see the appended table). 25. The Government submitted that the amounts claimed were excessive. 26. Ruling on an equitable basis, as required by Article 41 of the Convention, the Court awards each applicant the sum of EUR 4,700 under this head for the violation of Article 6 of the Convention (non-enforcement of final judgments) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount. 27. Ruling on an equitable basis, as required by Article 41 of the Convention, the Court awards each applicant (or household, where appropriate) the sum of EUR 3,000 under this head, for the violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount. 28. The applicants claimed various amounts in respect of costs and expenses (see the appended table). The applicant in application no. 77919/11 submitted two receipts of payments made for legal services provided at the domestic level. Some applicants also submitted receipts for postal expenses. 29. The Government submitted that the costs claimed for legal services were exaggerated and that no evidence substantiating the actual expenses had been presented by the applicants. 30. The Court reiterates that under Rule 60 of the Rules of Court, all claims for just satisfaction must be itemised and submitted in writing together with any relevant supporting documents, failing which the Court may reject the claim in whole or in part. 31. Having regard to the documents provided by the applicant in application no. 77919/11, the Court awards him EUR 110 for the legal services rendered before the domestic courts. As to the remaining applicants, who were represented by the same lawyer, the Court notes that they failed to submit a copy of a contract for legal services or any other document in support of their claims. It therefore dismisses their claims in this part. 32. As to the part of the claims concerning postal expenses, the Court awards the amounts indicated in the appended table to the applicants who have provided the relevant supporting documents and dismisses the claims in applications where no documents have been submitted. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) Ms Zarina Allahverdiyeva, Ms Zarifa Allahverdiyeva, Ms Elmira Allahverdiyeva, and Ms Narmina Allahverdiyeva have a legitimate interest in pursuing application no. 44972/12 in Ms Intizar Allahverdiyeva’s stead;
(b) Mr Nazim Azimov has a legitimate interest in pursuing application no. 56371/12 in Mr Parviz Amirov’s stead; and
(c) Mr Rufat Aliyev and Ms Sonakhanim Aliyeva have a legitimate interest in pursuing application no. 57685/12 in Ms Minakhanim Azimova’s stead;
(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 14 January 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Olga Chernishova Darian Pavli Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications
No. Application no. Lodged on
Applicant’s name
year of birth
place of residence
Type and size of property (according to the ownership documents)
Compensation awarded/paid at the domestic level
Updated just satisfaction claims
Amounts awarded by the Court
1. 77919/11
22/11/2011
Ismayil Aliheydar oglu BAGVANOV
1956
Baku
A house of 95.6 sq. m + buildings of 29.1 sq. m + a garage of 20 sq. m located on a plot of land of 0.0232 ha
AZN 187,050 for pecuniary damage awarded by the courts;
AZN 217,050 paid under the contract
EUR 2,552,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 770,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
EUR 11,000 for costs and expenses. EUR 370,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
EUR 125 for costs and expenses. 2. 9310/12
14/02/2012
Darya Stanislavna GULIYEVA
1979
Baku
A flat of 105 sq. m
AZN 157,500 for pecuniary damage + AZN 2,000 for non-pecuniary damage awarded by the courts
EUR 700,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 300,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
AZN 7,000 for legal services and AZN 200 for postal expenses. EUR 98,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
EUR 84 for costs and expenses. 3. 22730/12
12/04/2012
Eldar Asgar oglu HUSEYNOV
1942
Sumgayit
A flat of 28 sq. m
AZN 42,000 for pecuniary damage awarded by the courts
EUR 700,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 120,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
EUR 6,000 in respect of legal services and EUR 200 for postal expenses. EUR 46,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
EUR 48 for costs and expenses. 4. 37786/12
18/06/2012
Kamala Israfil gizi ALIYEVA
1965
Baku
Two rooms of 39.1 sq. m in a flat
AZN 58,650 paid under the contract
EUR 500,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 200,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
EUR 5,000 for legal services and AZN 200 for postal expenses. EUR 28,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
EUR 33 for costs and expenses. 5. 44972/12
18/07/2012
Intizar Karim gizi ALLAHVERDIYEVA
1953
Baku
Deceased: 2019
1⁄2 of a flat of 68 sq. m
AZN 51,000 paid under the contract
EUR 300,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 100,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
AZN 5,000 for legal services and AZN 70 for postal expenses. EUR 156,000 jointly to the applicants in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 3,000 jointly to the applicants in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
EUR 26 for costs and expenses to the first applicant only. Zarifa Karim gizi ALLAHVERDIYEVA
1959
Baku
1⁄2 of the same flat
AZN 51,000 paid under the contract
EUR 300,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 100,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
AZN 3,500 for legal services. 6. 56371/12
31/08/2012
Parviz Mukhtar oglu AMIROV
1969
Baku
Deceased: 2020
One room of 12.5 sq. m in a flat
AZN 31,995 paid under the contract
EUR 82,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 70,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
AZN 7,000 for legal services and AZN 110 for postal expenses. EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
EUR 51 for costs and expenses. 7. 57685/12
06/09/2012
Minakhanim Agasalim gizi AZIMOVA
1946
Baku
Deceased: 2022
Two rooms of 34 sq. m in a flat
AZN 90,000 paid under the contract
EUR 360,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 120,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
AZN 5,000 for legal services and AZN 100 for postal expenses. EUR 65,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
EUR 26 for costs and expenses. Mehriban Imanali gizi ALIYEVA
1969
Baku
A flat of 29 sq. m
AZN 43,500 paid under the contract
EUR 200,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 70,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
AZN 5,000 for legal services. EUR 88,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Valeriya Vitalyevna MAHMUDOVA
1966
Baku
A flat of 61 sq. m
AZN 91,500 paid under the contract
EUR 320,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 100,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
AZN 7,000 for legal services and AZN 200 for postal expenses. EUR 122,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Rugiya Astan gizi MAMMAD
1957
Baku
Four rooms in a flat of 101.5 sq. m
AZN 134,250 paid under the contract
EUR 500,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 150,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
AZN 7,000 for legal services. EUR 155,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Saadat Mughdat gizi AZIZOVA
1969
Baku
One room of 12 sq. m
AZN 18,000 paid under the contract
EUR 100,000 in respect of for pecuniary damage;
EUR 70,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
AZN 7,000 for legal services. EUR 8,300 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 8. 61516/12
24/09/2012
Fuad Tofig oglu ALIYEV
1968
Baku
11/12 of a house (no information is available about the size of the house)
AZN 68,887 paid under the contract
EUR 600,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 200,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
EUR 5,000 for legal services and AZN 70 for postal expenses. EUR 30,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
EUR 26 for costs and expenses. 9. 73555/12
16/11/2012
Yasaman Gurban gizi KARIMOVA
1951
Baku
A flat of 65 sq. m + basement of 16.1 sq. m
AZN 145,980 for pecuniary damage and AZN 1,000 for non-pecuniary damage awarded by the courts,
but paid AZN 121,650 only under the contract
EUR 370,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 100,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
AZN 10,500 for legal services and AZN 200 for postal expenses. EUR 136,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 4,700 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
EUR 81 for costs and expenses. 10. 81486/12
19/12/2012
Flora Davidovna GADIROVA
1966
Baku
One room of 14.7 sq. m in a flat
AZN 22,500 awarded by the courts but not paid
EUR 100,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 50,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
AZN 3,500 for legal services. EUR 7,100 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 4,700 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
EUR 26 for costs and expenses. 11. 81494/12
20/12/2012
Rukhsara Suleyman gizi HUSEYNOVA
1944
Baku
A flat of 172 sq. m
AZN 259,500 paid under the contract
EUR 1,600,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 300,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
AZN 5,000 for legal services and AZN 100 for postal expenses. EUR 106,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
EUR 41 for costs and expenses. 12. 5192/13
28/12/2012
Afag Adil gizi ISMAYILOVA
1958
Baku
A flat of 107.5 sq. m
AZN 193,500 for pecuniary damage and AZN 2,500 for non-pecuniary damage awarded by the courts, but not paid
EUR 1,500,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 500,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
AZN 10,500 for legal services and AZN 200 for postal expenses. EUR 117,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 4,700 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
EUR 41 for costs and expenses. 13. 13579/13
22/02/2013
Shirinbaji Ibrahim gizi RZAYEVA
1953
Baku
1/3 of a flat of 41.3 sq. m
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
EUR 60,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 50,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
AZN 7,000 for legal services. EUR 12,000 jointly to the applicants in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 3,000 jointly to the applicants in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
EUR 58 for costs and expenses to the first applicant only. Ali Mukhtar oglu RZA
1976
Baku
1/3 of the same flat
EUR 60,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 50,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
AZN 7,000 for legal services. 14. 51850/14
15/07/2014
Lilya Asadulla gizi ALIYEVA
1943
Baku
A flat of 190.8 sq. m
AZN 286,200 paid under the contract;
AZN 57,240 awarded by the courts but not paid
EUR 1,500,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 300,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
AZN 5,000 for legal services and AZN 70 for postal expenses. EUR 88,000 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 4,700 in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
EUR 26 for costs and expenses.