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

1. Preliminary issues

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.

2. ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

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.”

1. Pecuniary damage
   1. The parties’ submissions

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.

2. The Court’s assessment

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.

2. Non-pecuniary damage

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.

1. Applications nos. 73555/12, 81486/12, 5192/13 and 51850/14

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.

2. Remaining applications

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.

3. Costs and expenses

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,

1. Holds that:

(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;

2. Holds

(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;

3. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.

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