THIRD SECTION
CASE OF ALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
(Application no. 57461/16)
JUDGMENT
(Merits)
STRASBOURG
22 April 2025
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Aliyev 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 regard to:
the application (no. 57461/16) 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”) on 19 September 2016 by an Azerbaijani national, Mr Etibar Yunis oglu Aliyev (Etibar Yunis oğlu Əliyev - “the applicant”), who was born in 1966, lives in Gadabay and was represented by Mr F. Mammadov, a lawyer based in Azerbaijan;
the decision to give notice of the application to the Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Əsgərov;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 18 March 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The application mainly concerns the applicant’s complaint about the allegedly unlawful demolition of his property.
2. The applicant was a private entrepreneur and owned a non-residential building (a shop) with a total surface area of 25 sq. m, located on a plot of land with the same surface area, in Gadabay. On 3 February 1998 the Head of the Gadabay District Executive Authority (“the GDEA”) issued an order for the demolition of the applicant’s building, together with other commercial buildings located in the vicinity of the central bus station. The order was not executed. On 29 December 2014 the Head of the GDEA issued a new order on the relocation of businesses in various commercial buildings in the city centre, including the applicant’s shop, to a newly constructed shopping centre nearby. According to the applicant, in the autumn of 2014 representatives of the GDEA informed him that his shop was scheduled for demolition, and he was offered a small, unfinished building. He turned down this offer.
3. In February 2015 employees of the GDEA demolished his shop without prior warning.
4. On an unspecified date the applicant brought proceedings against the GDEA before the Ganja Administrative-Economic Court, requesting that the court declare the GDEA’s actions unlawful and award him 60,000 Azerbaijani manats (AZN) for the loss of his shop, a separate sum for lost profit, and AZN 50,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. He also requested that the plot of land underlying the shop be returned to his use (see paragraph 2 above), or that he be allocated a similar plot of land with the same surface area.
5. On 18 May 2015 the Ganja Administrative-Economic Court rejected the applicant’s claim. The court concluded that the demolition of the applicant’s building had been lawful, in that it had been carried out in accordance with the GDEA’s order and the applicant had been allocated a commercial space in a newly built shopping centre nearby in exchange for the demolished building.
6. The applicant appealed, arguing, inter alia, that he had refused to take possession of the new space because it was in a small, unfinished building, was located under a high-voltage power line and the appropriate documentation had not been issued. In addition, he had not been offered any money to offset the cost of making the space usable.
7. On 12 October 2015 and 2 March 2016 respectively the Ganja Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeals, without addressing the applicant’s arguments as set out above.
8. It appears from the case file that the applicant had not taken possession of the commercial space offered in compensation.
9. The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that his shop had been unlawfully demolished by the GDEA and that he had not been awarded any compensation.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
10. The Government submitted that the expropriation of the applicant’s building had been in the public interest, in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, and that this interference had not imposed an excessive burden on the applicant since he had been allocated a larger commercial space in a modern shopping centre that had all the necessary infrastructure, and this constituted sufficient compensation for any pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage he might have suffered.
11. The applicant maintained his complaint. In his observations, the applicant also submitted that “his right to use the land” underlying the shop had been violated.
12. The Court notes that in his initial application to the Court the applicant complained only about the allegedly unlawful demolition of his shop. Having regard to the fact that the issue of an alleged violation of his right to use the land underlying the shop was not part of the complaint of which the Government were given notice on 19 October 2017, the Court will limit its consideration to the applicant’s initial complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, namely the complaint regarding the allegedly unlawful demolition of his shop (compare, for example, Aliyeva and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 66249/16 and 6 others, §§ 94-96, 21 September 2021, with a further reference).
13. In so far as the Government’s submissions (see paragraph 10 above) may be understood as an objection regarding the applicant’s victim status, the Court reiterates that an applicant is deprived of his or her status as a victim if the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded appropriate and sufficient redress for a breach of the Convention (see Bagirova and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 37706/17 and 5 others, § 40, 31 August 2023, with further references). In the present case, the domestic courts held that the expropriation of the applicant’s property had been in compliance with domestic law (see paragraph 5 above). There was therefore no acknowledgement of a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 by the domestic courts. In the absence of any such acknowledgement, the Court considers that the applicant can still claim to be a victim of the alleged violation and 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.
14. The relevant case-law principles have been summarised, in particular, in the Court’s judgments in the cases of Akhverdiyev v. Azerbaijan (no. 76254/11, §§ 79-82, 29 January 2015); Khalikova v. Azerbaijan (no. 42883/11, §§ 134-36, 22 October 2015); and Maharramov v. Azerbaijan (no. 5046/07, §§ 56-60, 30 March 2017).
15. It is not disputed that GDEA representatives demolished the applicant’s building. There was, therefore, an interference with the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions which amounted to a “deprivation of ... possessions” for the purposes of the second sentence of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
16. As to the GDEA’s order of 29 December 2014, the Court notes that under domestic law the GDEA, as a local executive authority, had no competence to make decisions regarding the expropriation of privately‑owned property (see Akhverdiyev, § 92; Khalikova, § 138, and Maharramov, § 61, all cited above). Nor has it been demonstrated that such power was expressly delegated to the GDEA by a competent authority in the present case. It follows that there was no lawful expropriation order issued by a competent State authority and the interference with the applicant’s possessions by the GDEA thus constituted a de facto deprivation of possessions.
17. With regard to the commercial space offered to the applicant as compensation, the Court notes that under domestic law the owner’s express consent was required in order for him to be allocated another commercial space instead of being awarded monetary compensation. In the present case, the applicant had asked the domestic courts to award him monetary compensation and had refused to accept the in-kind compensation offered by the GDEA (see paragraphs 2, 4 and 6 above). However, the domestic courts failed to address this issue and to explain why they chose to allocate the applicant a commercial space rather than award him monetary compensation (see paragraphs 5 and 7 above). In such circumstances, the Court finds that the in‑kind compensation offered to the applicant without his consent was not in accordance with the requirements of domestic law (compare Guliyeva v. Azerbaijan [Committee], no. 51424/08, § 63, 23 September 2021).
18. The Court concludes that the interference in the present case was not carried out in compliance with “conditions provided for by law” (compare Akhverdiyev, cited above, § 99). That conclusion makes it unnecessary to ascertain whether a fair balance was struck between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights (ibid.).
19. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
20. The applicant also complained under Article 6 of the Convention that there had been a violation of his right to a reasoned judgment. 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 question raised by the case and that there is no need to examine the remaining complaint (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
21. In respect of pecuniary damage, the applicant claimed 45,000 Azerbaijani manats (AZN) for the demolished building and AZN 3,000 per month from the date of the demolition until the date on which compensation would be paid. He also claimed AZN 50,000 in respect of non‑pecuniary damage.
22. The Government submitted that the claim for pecuniary damage was unsubstantiated and asked the Court to reject his claims under this head.
23. The Court considers that the question of the application of Article 41 is not ready for decision. It is therefore necessary to reserve the matter, due regard being had to the possibility of an agreement between the respondent State and the applicant (Rule 75 §§ 1 and 4 of the Rules of Court). Should the parties fail to settle the matter, they are requested to provide a duly substantiated valuation of the applicant’s property in accordance with the principles enumerated in Akhverdiyev v. Azerbaijan ((just satisfaction), no. 76254/11, § 33, 21 March 2019).
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) reserves the said question in whole;
(b) invites the Government and the applicant to submit, within three months, their written observations on the matter and, in particular, to notify the Court of any agreement that they may reach;
(c) reserves the further procedure and delegates to the President of the Committee the power to fix the same if need be.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 April 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Olga Chernishova Darian Pavli
Deputy Registrar President