I incorrectly predicted that there's no violation of human rights in HUSEYNOV v. AZERBAIJAN and 3 other applications.

Judgment

THIRD SECTION
CASE OF HUSEYNOV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
(Applications nos. 53173/13 and 3 others –
see appended list)

JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
15 July 2025

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Huseynov and Others v. Azerbaijan,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Canòlic Mingorance Cairat, President, Lətif Hüseynov, Vasilka Sancin, judges,and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the applications against the Republic of Azerbaijan lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the applicants listed in the appended table (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated therein, represented by Ms S. Aliyeva and Mr K. Bagirov, lawyers based in Azerbaijan;
the decision to give notice of the complaints under Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention to the Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”) represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Əsgərov, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of applications nos. 53173/13 and 53731/13;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 24 June 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The applications concern the alleged unlawful expropriation of the applicants’ flats and non-residential properties following an order of 16 February 2011 by the Baku City Executive Authority (“the BCEA”), which stated that the buildings and houses located on certain streets in Baku were to be demolished for the purpose of constructing a new garden-park complex (“the Winter Park”) and the residents were to be relocated. The BCEA offered each applicant 1,500 Azerbaijani manats (AZN) per square metre of his or her property. This amount was offered not as compensation for expropriation but rather on the basis of a contract of sale between each applicant and Z.I., a high-ranking official of the BCEA. On various dates the applicants entered into such contracts and received various amounts (see the appended table). 2. The applicants jointly brought proceedings against the BCEA in Baku Administrative Economic Court no. 1, asking it to invalidate the BCEA’s order and to award them compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage. They later added to their claims, asking the court to invalidate the contracts of sale (except the applicant in application no. 53173/13, who challenged the validity of the contract of sale separately – see paragraph 5 below), to have their properties rebuilt and to award them compensation in respect of pecuniary damage. 3. On 31 January 2013 Baku Administrative Economic Court no. 1 adopted two decisions (qərardad). By its first decision, the court terminated the proceedings concerning the invalidation of the BCEA’s order and the claims for compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage on the grounds that, over a period of more than thirty days, the applicants had twice failed to appear at hearings (held on 19 December 2012 and 31 January 2013) despite having been informed of them. It therefore considered that the claims should be regarded as withdrawn. The decision stated that no appeal could be lodged against it. 4. By its second decision, the court referred the applicants’ remaining civil claims to the Nasimi District Court. At the time of lodging the present applications, the applicants were still awaiting the outcome of those domestic civil proceedings. It appears from subsequent submissions to the Court that the applicants in application no. 53731/13 did not pursue those proceedings. 5. The applicant in application no. 53173/13 contested the validity of the contract of sale separately, as he had entered into it later than the other applicants. The first-instance court dismissed his claims, a decision subsequently upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court in a final judgment of 19 September 2013 (a copy of that judgment was not submitted to the Court). The courts found that the applicant had failed to prove that the contract of sale in question had been entered into under duress and concluded that there were no grounds for declaring it null and void. 6. The applicants complained that the decision of 31 January 2013 to terminate the proceedings had been in breach of Article 6 of the Convention and had deprived them of the opportunity to apply to higher courts. They further complained under Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the demolition and expropriation of their properties had been unlawful. The applicants also complained under Article 13 of the Convention that they had not been afforded a remedy providing effective protection against the violation of their rights. 7. Subsequently, the applicant in application no. 53173/13, Mr Huseynov, and one of the applicants in application no. 53731/13, Mr Ismayilov, separately lodged new claims against the BCEA with Baku Administrative Economic Court no. 1. The second applicant in application no. 47637/15 is Mr Ismayilov’s wife. The applicants complained that the amount paid under the contract of sale did not reflect the real market value of their properties. They asked the court to award them (i) the market value of their expropriated properties; (ii) compensation of 20% of the market prices of their properties, to be paid in addition to the purchase price (“the additional 20% compensation”), in accordance with Article 2.3 of Presidential Decree no. 689 of 26 December 2007, and (iii) further additional compensation “for hardship” of 10% of the “total compensation” paid to them (“compensation for hardship”), in accordance with 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). 8. The first-instance court awarded the applicants the additional 20% compensation (see the appended table) and dismissed their remaining claims. Those judgments were upheld on appeal by the Baku Court of Appeal and then, in final judgments of 27 January 2015 and 19 February 2015, by the Supreme Court. When the applicants lodged the present applications, those judgments had not yet been enforced. 9. The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the non-enforcement of the Supreme Court’s final judgments in their favour. They also complained of a breach of their right to a reasoned judgment. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
10. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment (Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court). 11. The applicants in all applications were initially represented by Ms S. Aliyeva. After notice of the applications had been given to the Government, the fourth, fifth, seventh, eleventh and thirteenth applicants in application no. 53731/13 and the applicants in application no. 47637/15 informed the Court that they had severed their relations with Ms Aliyeva and had appointed Mr K. Bagirov as their representative. At the Court’s request, Ms Aliyeva presented proof that she maintained contact with the first, third, sixth and eighth applicants in application no. 53731/13 and with the applicant in applications nos. 53173/13 and 50695/15. It therefore appears that the second, ninth, tenth and twelfth applicants in application no. 53731/13 have not maintained contact with their representative. Consequently, the Court considers that those applicants have lost interest in the proceedings and no longer intend to pursue their application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention (compare V.M. and Others (striking out) [GC], no. 60125/11, § 36, 17 November 2016). It follows that application no. 53731/13, in so far as it concerns the second, ninth, tenth and twelfth applicants, should be struck out of the Court’s list of cases. 12. The Court further notes that one of the applicants in application no. 53731/13, Mr Anvar Maharramov, died while the application was pending before the Court and that his son, Mr Mammad Maharramov, has expressed his wish to continue the proceedings. Having regard to its case-law on the matter (see, for example, Mammadov and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 35432/07, § 80, 21 February 2019, with further references), the Court accepts that the late applicant’s son, Mr Mammad Maharramov, has a legitimate interest in pursuing the application in his stead. 13. The Government argued that the applicants had failed to contest the decision of 31 January 2013 before the higher courts. The applicants argued that no appeal could have been lodged against that decision. 14. The Court notes that the decision in question clearly stated that no appeal could be lodged against it (see paragraph 3 above). In view of this, and in the absence of any substantiated arguments or examples from domestic case-law to the contrary, the Court dismisses the Government’s objection. 15. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. 16. The applicants asserted that no notification of the hearings of 19 December 2012 and 31 January 2013 (see paragraph 3 above) had ever been sent to them or their representative. The Government submitted that the applicants had been duly informed of the date and place of the hearings but had failed to appear in court. 17. The general principles concerning access to a court were summarised in Zubac v. Croatia ([GC], no. 40160/12, §§ 76-79, 5 April 2018) and concerning notification of parties, in Gankin and Others v. Russia (nos. 2430/06 and 3 others, §§ 25‐28, 31 May 2016). 18. The Court notes that the first-instance court decided to terminate the proceedings, finding that the applicants’ failure to appear at two hearings despite being informed of them meant that their claims had to be regarded as withdrawn. In this connection, the Court observes that the text of the relevant decision does not indicate that the court verified whether the applicants had been properly informed of the date and venue of the hearings. Furthermore, while the Government produced a copy of the summons issued on 19 December 2012, the letter was not postmarked and no other evidence was provided showing that it had actually been sent to the applicants or their lawyer or otherwise delivered to them in a timely manner (compare Gurbanov v. Azerbaijan [Committee], no. 10616/17, § 12, 7 September 2023). Lacking any evidence of proper notification, the Court accepts the applicants’ submissions that they were not aware of the date and venue of the hearings in the first-instance court (compare Pirali Orujov v. Azerbaijan, no. 8460/07, § 41, 3 February 2011, with further references; Gankin and Others, cited above, § 42; and Religious Community of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Hansen v. Azerbaijan [Committee], no. 52682/07, § 28, 30 January 2020). 19. In view of the above conclusion, the Court cannot accept the first‐instance court’s finding that the applicants had to be regarded as having withdrawn their claims. In the Court’s view, the termination of the proceedings in such a manner, which prevented the applicants from having their claims against the BCEA determined by the domestic courts, constitutes a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (compare Beneficio Cappella Paolini v. San Marino, no. 40786/98, § 29, ECHR 2004-VIII (extracts)). 20. The Government submitted that the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. They also produced copies of the applicants’ letters of 16 August 2016 (application no. 50695/15) and 16 September 2021 (application no. 47637/15) addressed to the relevant enforcement authority and informing it, without specifying the dates, that the judgments in question had been fully enforced. The applicants in application no. 47637/15 asserted that the relevant judgment had been enforced after a delay of five years and eight months. The applicant in application no. 50695/15 did not make any submission in that regard. 21. The Court notes that it has dismissed similar objections that have been raised by the Government in previous cases (see, for example, Mirzayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 50187/06, §§ 24-28, 3 December 2009). The Court refers to its reasoning in the above-mentioned case and sees no grounds to depart from it. Therefore, the Government’s objection should be dismissed. 22. This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other grounds. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. 23. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that the complaint discloses a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in the light of its findings in Jafarli and Others v. Azerbaijan (no. 36079/06, §§ 52-58, 29 July 2010); Faber Firm and Jafarov v. Azerbaijan (no. 3365/08, §§ 20-25, 25 November 2010); and Akhundov v. Azerbaijan (no. 39941/07, §§ 31-40, 3 February 2011). 24. It appears from the document submitted by the Government that the judgment of 19 February 2015 was enforced, at the latest, on 16 August 2016 (see paragraph 20 above). While the applicant submitted that he had received the amount due under that judgment, he did not mention the date on which that payment had been made. Nor did he appear to complain of delayed enforcement of the relevant judgment. This complaint is therefore manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. 25. As regards the remaining complaints in all applications (see paragraphs 6 and 9 above), having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and its findings above, the Court considers that it has dealt with the main legal questions raised by the case and that there is no need to examine the remaining complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no.47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014). APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
26. The applicants claimed various amounts in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and in respect of costs and expenses (see the appended table). 27. The Government argued that the amounts claimed were unsubstantiated and excessive. 28. The Court notes that it has found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in applications nos. 53173/13 and 53731/13. It further notes that under domestic law, the applicants have the possibility of requesting the reopening of their case (see Abbasali Ahmadov and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 46579/14 and 2 others, § 112, 6 June 2024, with a further reference). The Court therefore rejects the applicants’ claims in respect of pecuniary damage. However, it awards the applicants the amounts indicated in the appended table in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable. 29. Having regard to the documents in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicants the amounts indicated in the appended table in respect of legal costs, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them, and dismisses the remainder of their claims. 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, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses, 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-mentioned 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 15 July 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Olga Chernishova Canòlic Mingorance Cairat Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX
List of cases:
No. Application no. Case name

Lodged on
ApplicantYear of birthPlace of residenceNationality
Expropriated property

Amounts received under contracts of sale/awarded by the courts
Just satisfaction claims
Amounts awarded by the Court in respect of non‐pecuniary damage and costs and expenses
1.
and 2. 53173/13
and
50695/15

Huseynov v. Azerbaijan

30/07/2013
and
02/10/2015

Hasan Suleyman oglu HUSEYNOV1947BakuAzerbaijani
A flat of 115.3 sq. m

AZN 190,950 (approximately 197,300 euros (EUR) at the relevant time) received under the contract and
AZN 38,190 (approximately EUR 42,700) awarded as additional 20% compensation. AZN 243,530 in respect of pecuniary damage;
AZN 50,000 in respect of non‐pecuniary damage. EUR 4,000 in respect of non‐pecuniary damage. 3. 53731/13

Rabiyya Aliyeva and Others v. Azerbaijan

29/07/2013
1. Rabiyya Tagi gizi ALIYEVA1929BakuAzerbaijani
A flat of 39.05 sq. m

AZN 83,250 (approximately EUR 87,500) received under the contract
AZN 98,525 in respect of pecuniary damage;
AZN 50,000 in respect of non‐pecuniary damage. EUR 4,000 in respect of non‐pecuniary damage. 2. Nigar
Fuad gizi ALIZADE1975BakuAzerbaijani
A flat of 31.3 sq. m

AZN 46,950 (approximately EUR 43,700) under the contract
Not submitted
N/A
3. Khayal
Ali oglu
HAJIYEV1978BakuAzerbaijani
A flat of 51 sq. m

AZN 77,100 (approximately EUR 73,400) received under the contract
AZN 127,400 in respect of pecuniary damage;
AZN 50,000 in respect of non‐pecuniary damage. EUR 4,000 in respect of non‐pecuniary damage. 4. Elshad
Akif oglu HAMIDOV1977BakuAzerbaijani
A flat of 107.77 sq. m

AZN 161,665 (approximately EUR 154,00) under the contract
AZN 168,335 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 20,000 in respect of non‐pecuniary damage;
EUR 2,000 in respect of legal services and EUR 550 in respect of translation costs jointly with the
fifth, seventh, eleventh and thirteenth applicants in application no. 53731/13. EUR 4,000 in respect of non‐pecuniary damage. EUR 500 in respect of costs and expenses jointly with the fifth, seventh, eleventh and thirteenth applicants in application no. 53731/13, to be paid directly to the bank account of Mr K. Bagirov. 5. Adil
Talat oglu ISMAYILOV1959BakuAzerbaijani
A flat of 78.9 sq. m

AZN 118,000 (approximately EUR 120,200) under the contract
AZN 118,700 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 20,000 in respect of non‐pecuniary damage. See below, for a joint award, application no. 47637/15
6. Aytakin Tapdig gizi KHUDAFIRIMOVA1963BakuAzerbaijani
A flat of 59.90 sq. m

AZN 89,850 (approximately EUR 79,150) under the contract
AZN 148,760 in respect of pecuniary damage;
AZN 50,000 in respect of non‐pecuniary damage. EUR 4,000 in respect of non‐pecuniary damage. 7. Anvar Mammad oglu MAHARRAMOV1933BakuAzerbaijani
Died: 2014
A non-residential property of 37.4 sq. m

AZN 56,100 (approximately EUR 51,850) under the contract
AZN 56,100 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 20,000 in respect of non‐pecuniary damage. EUR 4,000 in respect of non‐pecuniary damage. 8. Yagub Yahya oglu MAMMADOV1960BakuAzerbaijani
Two rooms of 23 sq. m in a flat

AZN 66,000 (approximately EUR 58,600) under the contract
AZN 60,202 in respect of pecuniary damage;
AZN 50,000 in respect of non‐pecuniary damage. EUR 4,000 in respect of non‐pecuniary damage. 9. Larisa Viktorovna MAMMADOVA (MAMMADLI)1960BakuAzerbaijani
A flat of 18.5 sq.m. AZN 27,810 (approximately EUR 28,400) under the contract
Not submitted
N/A
10. Dilara Hatam gizi RAHIMOVA1961BakuAzerbaijani
A flat of 45 sq. m

AZN 67,500 (approximately EUR 60,300) under the contract
Not submitted
N/A
11. Oleg Anvar oglu SADIGOV1950BakuAzerbaijani
A flat of 34 sq. m

AZN 70,050 (approximately EUR 66,700) under the contract
AZN 31,950 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 20,000 in respect of non‐pecuniary damage. EUR 4,000 in respect of non‐pecuniary damage. 12. Leyla Fakhraddin gizi SULEYMANOVA1993BakuAzerbaijani
A room of 19.4 sq. m in a flat

AZN 52,259 (approximately EUR 53,200) under the contract

Not submitted
N/A
13. Dilara Rahim gizi SULTANOVA1974BakuAzerbaijani
A flat of 114.8 sq. m

AZN 172,000 (approximately EUR 162,600) under the contract
AZN 172,200 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 20,000 in respect of non‐pecuniary damage. EUR 4,000 in respect of non‐pecuniary damage. 4. 47637/15

Ismayilov and Ismayilova v. Azerbaijan

28/08/2015
Adil
Talat oglu ISMAYILOV
1959
Baku
Azerbaijani

Nurcahan Huseyn gizi ISMAYILOVA
1963
Baku
Azerbaijani
AZN 23,640 (approximately EUR 26,800) awarded by courts as additional 20% compensation
AZN 11,820 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 10,000 in respect of non‐pecuniary damage;
AZN 1,000 for legal services and EUR 200 for translation costs. EUR 5,000 in respect of non‐pecuniary damage (taking into account the violation of Article 6 § 1 in application no. 53731/13 in respect of the applicant Mr Ismayilov). EUR 150 in respect of costs and expenses
to be paid directly to the bank account of Mr K. Bagirov. THIRD SECTION
CASE OF HUSEYNOV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
(Applications nos. 53173/13 and 3 others –
see appended list)

JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
15 July 2025

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Huseynov and Others v. Azerbaijan,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Canòlic Mingorance Cairat, President, Lətif Hüseynov, Vasilka Sancin, judges,and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the applications against the Republic of Azerbaijan lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the applicants listed in the appended table (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated therein, represented by Ms S. Aliyeva and Mr K. Bagirov, lawyers based in Azerbaijan;
the decision to give notice of the complaints under Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention to the Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”) represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Əsgərov, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of applications nos. 53173/13 and 53731/13;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 24 June 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The applications concern the alleged unlawful expropriation of the applicants’ flats and non-residential properties following an order of 16 February 2011 by the Baku City Executive Authority (“the BCEA”), which stated that the buildings and houses located on certain streets in Baku were to be demolished for the purpose of constructing a new garden-park complex (“the Winter Park”) and the residents were to be relocated. The BCEA offered each applicant 1,500 Azerbaijani manats (AZN) per square metre of his or her property. This amount was offered not as compensation for expropriation but rather on the basis of a contract of sale between each applicant and Z.I., a high-ranking official of the BCEA. On various dates the applicants entered into such contracts and received various amounts (see the appended table). 2. The applicants jointly brought proceedings against the BCEA in Baku Administrative Economic Court no. 1, asking it to invalidate the BCEA’s order and to award them compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage. They later added to their claims, asking the court to invalidate the contracts of sale (except the applicant in application no. 53173/13, who challenged the validity of the contract of sale separately – see paragraph 5 below), to have their properties rebuilt and to award them compensation in respect of pecuniary damage. 3. On 31 January 2013 Baku Administrative Economic Court no. 1 adopted two decisions (qərardad). By its first decision, the court terminated the proceedings concerning the invalidation of the BCEA’s order and the claims for compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage on the grounds that, over a period of more than thirty days, the applicants had twice failed to appear at hearings (held on 19 December 2012 and 31 January 2013) despite having been informed of them. It therefore considered that the claims should be regarded as withdrawn. The decision stated that no appeal could be lodged against it. 4. By its second decision, the court referred the applicants’ remaining civil claims to the Nasimi District Court. At the time of lodging the present applications, the applicants were still awaiting the outcome of those domestic civil proceedings. It appears from subsequent submissions to the Court that the applicants in application no. 53731/13 did not pursue those proceedings. 5. The applicant in application no. 53173/13 contested the validity of the contract of sale separately, as he had entered into it later than the other applicants. The first-instance court dismissed his claims, a decision subsequently upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court in a final judgment of 19 September 2013 (a copy of that judgment was not submitted to the Court). The courts found that the applicant had failed to prove that the contract of sale in question had been entered into under duress and concluded that there were no grounds for declaring it null and void. 6. The applicants complained that the decision of 31 January 2013 to terminate the proceedings had been in breach of Article 6 of the Convention and had deprived them of the opportunity to apply to higher courts. They further complained under Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the demolition and expropriation of their properties had been unlawful. The applicants also complained under Article 13 of the Convention that they had not been afforded a remedy providing effective protection against the violation of their rights. 7. Subsequently, the applicant in application no. 53173/13, Mr Huseynov, and one of the applicants in application no. 53731/13, Mr Ismayilov, separately lodged new claims against the BCEA with Baku Administrative Economic Court no. 1. The second applicant in application no. 47637/15 is Mr Ismayilov’s wife. The applicants complained that the amount paid under the contract of sale did not reflect the real market value of their properties. They asked the court to award them (i) the market value of their expropriated properties; (ii) compensation of 20% of the market prices of their properties, to be paid in addition to the purchase price (“the additional 20% compensation”), in accordance with Article 2.3 of Presidential Decree no. 689 of 26 December 2007, and (iii) further additional compensation “for hardship” of 10% of the “total compensation” paid to them (“compensation for hardship”), in accordance with 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). 8. The first-instance court awarded the applicants the additional 20% compensation (see the appended table) and dismissed their remaining claims. Those judgments were upheld on appeal by the Baku Court of Appeal and then, in final judgments of 27 January 2015 and 19 February 2015, by the Supreme Court. When the applicants lodged the present applications, those judgments had not yet been enforced. 9. The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the non-enforcement of the Supreme Court’s final judgments in their favour. They also complained of a breach of their right to a reasoned judgment. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
10. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment (Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court). 11. The applicants in all applications were initially represented by Ms S. Aliyeva. After notice of the applications had been given to the Government, the fourth, fifth, seventh, eleventh and thirteenth applicants in application no. 53731/13 and the applicants in application no. 47637/15 informed the Court that they had severed their relations with Ms Aliyeva and had appointed Mr K. Bagirov as their representative. At the Court’s request, Ms Aliyeva presented proof that she maintained contact with the first, third, sixth and eighth applicants in application no. 53731/13 and with the applicant in applications nos. 53173/13 and 50695/15. It therefore appears that the second, ninth, tenth and twelfth applicants in application no. 53731/13 have not maintained contact with their representative. Consequently, the Court considers that those applicants have lost interest in the proceedings and no longer intend to pursue their application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention (compare V.M. and Others (striking out) [GC], no. 60125/11, § 36, 17 November 2016). It follows that application no. 53731/13, in so far as it concerns the second, ninth, tenth and twelfth applicants, should be struck out of the Court’s list of cases. 12. The Court further notes that one of the applicants in application no. 53731/13, Mr Anvar Maharramov, died while the application was pending before the Court and that his son, Mr Mammad Maharramov, has expressed his wish to continue the proceedings. Having regard to its case-law on the matter (see, for example, Mammadov and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 35432/07, § 80, 21 February 2019, with further references), the Court accepts that the late applicant’s son, Mr Mammad Maharramov, has a legitimate interest in pursuing the application in his stead. 13. The Government argued that the applicants had failed to contest the decision of 31 January 2013 before the higher courts. The applicants argued that no appeal could have been lodged against that decision. 14. The Court notes that the decision in question clearly stated that no appeal could be lodged against it (see paragraph 3 above). In view of this, and in the absence of any substantiated arguments or examples from domestic case-law to the contrary, the Court dismisses the Government’s objection. 15. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. 16. The applicants asserted that no notification of the hearings of 19 December 2012 and 31 January 2013 (see paragraph 3 above) had ever been sent to them or their representative. The Government submitted that the applicants had been duly informed of the date and place of the hearings but had failed to appear in court. 17. The general principles concerning access to a court were summarised in Zubac v. Croatia ([GC], no. 40160/12, §§ 76-79, 5 April 2018) and concerning notification of parties, in Gankin and Others v. Russia (nos. 2430/06 and 3 others, §§ 25‐28, 31 May 2016). 18. The Court notes that the first-instance court decided to terminate the proceedings, finding that the applicants’ failure to appear at two hearings despite being informed of them meant that their claims had to be regarded as withdrawn. In this connection, the Court observes that the text of the relevant decision does not indicate that the court verified whether the applicants had been properly informed of the date and venue of the hearings. Furthermore, while the Government produced a copy of the summons issued on 19 December 2012, the letter was not postmarked and no other evidence was provided showing that it had actually been sent to the applicants or their lawyer or otherwise delivered to them in a timely manner (compare Gurbanov v. Azerbaijan [Committee], no. 10616/17, § 12, 7 September 2023). Lacking any evidence of proper notification, the Court accepts the applicants’ submissions that they were not aware of the date and venue of the hearings in the first-instance court (compare Pirali Orujov v. Azerbaijan, no. 8460/07, § 41, 3 February 2011, with further references; Gankin and Others, cited above, § 42; and Religious Community of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Hansen v. Azerbaijan [Committee], no. 52682/07, § 28, 30 January 2020). 19. In view of the above conclusion, the Court cannot accept the first‐instance court’s finding that the applicants had to be regarded as having withdrawn their claims. In the Court’s view, the termination of the proceedings in such a manner, which prevented the applicants from having their claims against the BCEA determined by the domestic courts, constitutes a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (compare Beneficio Cappella Paolini v. San Marino, no. 40786/98, § 29, ECHR 2004-VIII (extracts)). 20. The Government submitted that the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. They also produced copies of the applicants’ letters of 16 August 2016 (application no. 50695/15) and 16 September 2021 (application no. 47637/15) addressed to the relevant enforcement authority and informing it, without specifying the dates, that the judgments in question had been fully enforced. The applicants in application no. 47637/15 asserted that the relevant judgment had been enforced after a delay of five years and eight months. The applicant in application no. 50695/15 did not make any submission in that regard. 21. The Court notes that it has dismissed similar objections that have been raised by the Government in previous cases (see, for example, Mirzayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 50187/06, §§ 24-28, 3 December 2009). The Court refers to its reasoning in the above-mentioned case and sees no grounds to depart from it. Therefore, the Government’s objection should be dismissed. 22. This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other grounds. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. 23. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that the complaint discloses a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in the light of its findings in Jafarli and Others v. Azerbaijan (no. 36079/06, §§ 52-58, 29 July 2010); Faber Firm and Jafarov v. Azerbaijan (no. 3365/08, §§ 20-25, 25 November 2010); and Akhundov v. Azerbaijan (no. 39941/07, §§ 31-40, 3 February 2011). 24. It appears from the document submitted by the Government that the judgment of 19 February 2015 was enforced, at the latest, on 16 August 2016 (see paragraph 20 above). While the applicant submitted that he had received the amount due under that judgment, he did not mention the date on which that payment had been made. Nor did he appear to complain of delayed enforcement of the relevant judgment. This complaint is therefore manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. 25. As regards the remaining complaints in all applications (see paragraphs 6 and 9 above), having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and its findings above, the Court considers that it has dealt with the main legal questions raised by the case and that there is no need to examine the remaining complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no.47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014). APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
26. The applicants claimed various amounts in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and in respect of costs and expenses (see the appended table). 27. The Government argued that the amounts claimed were unsubstantiated and excessive. 28. The Court notes that it has found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in applications nos. 53173/13 and 53731/13. It further notes that under domestic law, the applicants have the possibility of requesting the reopening of their case (see Abbasali Ahmadov and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 46579/14 and 2 others, § 112, 6 June 2024, with a further reference). The Court therefore rejects the applicants’ claims in respect of pecuniary damage. However, it awards the applicants the amounts indicated in the appended table in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable. 29. Having regard to the documents in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicants the amounts indicated in the appended table in respect of legal costs, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them, and dismisses the remainder of their claims. 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, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses, 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-mentioned 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 15 July 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Olga Chernishova Canòlic Mingorance Cairat Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX
List of cases:
No. Application no. Case name

Lodged on
ApplicantYear of birthPlace of residenceNationality
Expropriated property

Amounts received under contracts of sale/awarded by the courts
Just satisfaction claims
Amounts awarded by the Court in respect of non‐pecuniary damage and costs and expenses
1.
and 2. 53173/13
and
50695/15

Huseynov v. Azerbaijan

30/07/2013
and
02/10/2015

Hasan Suleyman oglu HUSEYNOV1947BakuAzerbaijani
A flat of 115.3 sq. m

AZN 190,950 (approximately 197,300 euros (EUR) at the relevant time) received under the contract and
AZN 38,190 (approximately EUR 42,700) awarded as additional 20% compensation. AZN 243,530 in respect of pecuniary damage;
AZN 50,000 in respect of non‐pecuniary damage. EUR 4,000 in respect of non‐pecuniary damage. 3. 53731/13

Rabiyya Aliyeva and Others v. Azerbaijan

29/07/2013
1. Rabiyya Tagi gizi ALIYEVA1929BakuAzerbaijani
A flat of 39.05 sq. m

AZN 83,250 (approximately EUR 87,500) received under the contract
AZN 98,525 in respect of pecuniary damage;
AZN 50,000 in respect of non‐pecuniary damage. EUR 4,000 in respect of non‐pecuniary damage. 2. Nigar
Fuad gizi ALIZADE1975BakuAzerbaijani
A flat of 31.3 sq. m

AZN 46,950 (approximately EUR 43,700) under the contract
Not submitted
N/A
3. Khayal
Ali oglu
HAJIYEV1978BakuAzerbaijani
A flat of 51 sq. m

AZN 77,100 (approximately EUR 73,400) received under the contract
AZN 127,400 in respect of pecuniary damage;
AZN 50,000 in respect of non‐pecuniary damage. EUR 4,000 in respect of non‐pecuniary damage. 4. Elshad
Akif oglu HAMIDOV1977BakuAzerbaijani
A flat of 107.77 sq. m

AZN 161,665 (approximately EUR 154,00) under the contract
AZN 168,335 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 20,000 in respect of non‐pecuniary damage;
EUR 2,000 in respect of legal services and EUR 550 in respect of translation costs jointly with the
fifth, seventh, eleventh and thirteenth applicants in application no. 53731/13. EUR 4,000 in respect of non‐pecuniary damage. EUR 500 in respect of costs and expenses jointly with the fifth, seventh, eleventh and thirteenth applicants in application no. 53731/13, to be paid directly to the bank account of Mr K. Bagirov. 5. Adil
Talat oglu ISMAYILOV1959BakuAzerbaijani
A flat of 78.9 sq. m

AZN 118,000 (approximately EUR 120,200) under the contract
AZN 118,700 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 20,000 in respect of non‐pecuniary damage. See below, for a joint award, application no. 47637/15
6. Aytakin Tapdig gizi KHUDAFIRIMOVA1963BakuAzerbaijani
A flat of 59.90 sq. m

AZN 89,850 (approximately EUR 79,150) under the contract
AZN 148,760 in respect of pecuniary damage;
AZN 50,000 in respect of non‐pecuniary damage. EUR 4,000 in respect of non‐pecuniary damage. 7. Anvar Mammad oglu MAHARRAMOV1933BakuAzerbaijani
Died: 2014
A non-residential property of 37.4 sq. m

AZN 56,100 (approximately EUR 51,850) under the contract
AZN 56,100 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 20,000 in respect of non‐pecuniary damage. EUR 4,000 in respect of non‐pecuniary damage. 8. Yagub Yahya oglu MAMMADOV1960BakuAzerbaijani
Two rooms of 23 sq. m in a flat

AZN 66,000 (approximately EUR 58,600) under the contract
AZN 60,202 in respect of pecuniary damage;
AZN 50,000 in respect of non‐pecuniary damage. EUR 4,000 in respect of non‐pecuniary damage. 9. Larisa Viktorovna MAMMADOVA (MAMMADLI)1960BakuAzerbaijani
A flat of 18.5 sq.m. AZN 27,810 (approximately EUR 28,400) under the contract
Not submitted
N/A
10. Dilara Hatam gizi RAHIMOVA1961BakuAzerbaijani
A flat of 45 sq. m

AZN 67,500 (approximately EUR 60,300) under the contract
Not submitted
N/A
11. Oleg Anvar oglu SADIGOV1950BakuAzerbaijani
A flat of 34 sq. m

AZN 70,050 (approximately EUR 66,700) under the contract
AZN 31,950 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 20,000 in respect of non‐pecuniary damage. EUR 4,000 in respect of non‐pecuniary damage. 12. Leyla Fakhraddin gizi SULEYMANOVA1993BakuAzerbaijani
A room of 19.4 sq. m in a flat

AZN 52,259 (approximately EUR 53,200) under the contract

Not submitted
N/A
13. Dilara Rahim gizi SULTANOVA1974BakuAzerbaijani
A flat of 114.8 sq. m

AZN 172,000 (approximately EUR 162,600) under the contract
AZN 172,200 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 20,000 in respect of non‐pecuniary damage. EUR 4,000 in respect of non‐pecuniary damage. 4. 47637/15

Ismayilov and Ismayilova v. Azerbaijan

28/08/2015
Adil
Talat oglu ISMAYILOV
1959
Baku
Azerbaijani

Nurcahan Huseyn gizi ISMAYILOVA
1963
Baku
Azerbaijani
AZN 23,640 (approximately EUR 26,800) awarded by courts as additional 20% compensation
AZN 11,820 in respect of pecuniary damage;
EUR 10,000 in respect of non‐pecuniary damage;
AZN 1,000 for legal services and EUR 200 for translation costs. EUR 5,000 in respect of non‐pecuniary damage (taking into account the violation of Article 6 § 1 in application no. 53731/13 in respect of the applicant Mr Ismayilov). EUR 150 in respect of costs and expenses
to be paid directly to the bank account of Mr K. Bagirov.