ABDULLAYEVA A OSTATNÍ proti Ázerbajdžánu

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF ABDULLAYEVA AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

(Application no. 39342/14)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

23 September 2025

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Abdullayeva 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 application (no. 39342/14) 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 15 May 2014 by four Azerbaijani nationals (see the appended table), who were represented by Mr N. Heydarov, 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 2 September 2025,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1. The application mainly concerns the applicants’ complaint of the allegedly unlawful demolition of their property.

2. The applicants are family members of Mr Ali Abdullayev, who owned two non-residential buildings of 89.4 sq. m (“the first building”) and 60.1 sq. m (“the second building”) on different streets in Gadabay, in accordance with the ownership documents issued by the State authorities in 1998 and 2010 respectively. A second “technical passport” was issued in respect of the first building in 2002 indicating that its surface area was 247.33 sq. m.

3. According to the applicants, on 21 May 2012 the representatives of the Gadabay District Executive Authority (“the GDEA”), supported by the police, destroyed the buildings in question without any prior notice.

4. In a reply to a complaint lodged by Mr Abdullayev, the Gadabay District Police Department indicated that his property had been demolished in the course of renovation works in the central part of Gadabay.

5. In August 2012 Mr Abdullayev brought proceedings against the GDEA before the Ganja Administrative-Economic Court. He complained that the GDEA had unlawfully demolished his property, in breach of domestic law concerning expropriation, and he submitted, among other things, photographs of his property taken before and after the destruction. He asked the court to award him 718,200 Azerbaijani manats (AZN) in respect of pecuniary damage, AZN 30,000 in respect of lost profit and AZN 50,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. He alleged that the first building had had three floors with an actual surface area of 549 sq. m and had contained a shop on the first floor and hotel rooms on the second and third floors; he submitted valuation reports from a private company which estimated the market value of the two buildings at AZN 550,000 and AZN 48,000 respectively.

6. On 21 June 2013 the Ganja Administrative-Economic Court allowed the applicant’s claim in part. The court established that following the destruction of Mr Abdullayev’s property, the land underlying it was used for public purposes. It further held that there was no proof that the property in question had been demolished by force and referred to the GDEA’s statement given at the court hearing that during the renovation works a piece of heavy equipment belonging to the GDEA had slipped and accidentally destroyed the first building. The court therefore held the GDEA civilly liable and awarded Mr Abdullayev AZN 31,586 – the amount indicated as the market value of the first building in the valuation report commissioned by the GDEA and presented to the court. It did not, however, establish how and by whom the second building had been demolished or make any award in respect of that property. The court also dismissed the valuation reports submitted by Mr Abdullayev, holding that the company which had drawn them up did not have “special authorisation”, required under domestic law in force at the material time.

7. Mr Abdullayev lodged an appeal, arguing, inter alia, that the requirement of “special authorisation” had been removed from the relevant law in 2007 and that the court’s reliance on this ground had thus been unlawful. He further argued that the court had failed to examine the relevant pieces of evidence submitted by him, which proved that the building had deliberately been demolished by the GDEA. He also complained that the court had failed to award him damages in respect of the second building.

8. While the appeal proceedings were pending, Mr Abdullayev died and the applicants joined the proceedings as his heirs.

9. On 14 November 2013 and 13 February 2014 respectively the Ganja Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court dismissed the applicants’ appeals, reiterating the same reasoning (see paragraph 6 above). In reply to the argument concerning the lower courts’ reliance on the above-mentioned ground for dismissing the reports relied on by the applicants (see paragraph 5 above), the Supreme Court stated, in a general manner, that this fact in itself did not affect the overall lawfulness of the lower courts’ judgments.

10. The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that they had been unlawfully deprived of their property and that they had not been awarded fair compensation. They also complained of a violation of their right to a reasoned judgment under Article 6 of the Convention.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

1. SCOPE OF THE CASE

11. In their observations submitted to the Court, the applicants introduced a new complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the non‑enforcement of the Supreme Court’s final judgment of 13 February 2014. In the Court’s view, this complaint is not an elaboration of the applicants’ original complaints (compare Olkhovikova v. Ukraine (dec.) [Committtee], no. 36002/08, § 14, 25 November 2011). Moreover, the applicants had the opportunity to lodge a new application in respect of any other complaints relating to the subsequent events in accordance with the requirements set out in Rule 47 of the Rules of Court (compare Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, nos. 68762/14 and 71200/14, § 97, 20 September 2018) and such opportunity is still open to them in the event that the judgment in question remains unenforced. The Court considers, therefore, that the scope of the present case is limited to the original complaints (see paragraph 10 above).

2. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION

12. The Government submitted that there had not been an intentional interference with the applicants’ right of property and that the demolition of the applicants’ property had happened on account of the accidental flow of circumstances. The applicants reiterated that the GDEA had intentionally demolished their property in violation of domestic law provisions concerning expropriation.

13. It was not disputed by the parties that the second building with a surface area of 60,1 sq. m had been in Mr Abdullayev’s ownership.

14. The applicants asserted that the surface area of the first building had measured 549 sq. m. The Court observes that, according to the ownership document, the first building measured 89.4 sq. m. It is true that the second technical passport issued in respect of the same building indicated its size as 247.33 sq. m (see paragraph 2 above). However, while a person holding a “technical passport” in respect of a building could apply to have his or her ownership right over that building recorded in a register of immovable property, provided that all the other documents submitted at the same time were also in order, it was not demonstrated in the present case that such an application was lodged with the relevant authorities, nor was any explanation provided for the failure to do so (compare Afandiyeva v. Azerbaijan (dec.) [Committee], no. 45751/14, § 14, 21 January 2025, with further references). It cannot, therefore, be established that the applicants’ claim in respect of the additional surface area of the first building beyond the size mentioned in the ownership document amounted to their “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It follows that the part of the complaint related to that claim is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

15. In the present case, the Government reiterated the domestic courts’ conclusion that the demolition of the applicants’ property had been the result of an accident in which heavy equipment had slipped and struck the first building, whereas the applicants had claimed that their property had deliberately been demolished by the GDEA. In examining this issue, the Court is compelled to look behind the appearances and investigate the realities of the situation before it (compare Par and Hyodo v. Azerbaijan, nos. 54563/11 and 22428/15, § 47, 18 November 2021).

16. The Court firstly notes that the domestic courts, when reaching the above-mentioned conclusion, merely relied on the GDEA’s statement in that regard and dismissed the applicants’ arguments without any reasoning or examination of the circumstances under which the alleged accident had happened. Moreover, the courts failed to explain how and by whom the second building, situated on a different street, was demolished. Having regard to the circumstances above, to the domestic courts’ finding that, following the demolition of the buildings in question the land underlying them was used for public needs (see paragraph 6 above), and to the reply provided by the relevant police department to Mr Abdullayev (see paragraph 4 above), the Court accepts that there has been an interference by the GDEA with the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. That interference amounted to a “deprivation of ... possessions” within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

17. The relevant case-law principles have been summarised, inter alia, in 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).

18. The Court notes that under domestic law the GDEA, as a local executive authority, had no competence to expropriate privately owned property (see Akhverdiyev, § 92; Khalikova, § 138; and Maharramov, § 61, all cited above). Nor has it been demonstrated that, prior to the demolition of the applicants’ property, there existed any lawful expropriation order taken by a State authority competent to do so (see Khalikova, cited above, § 139).

19. The Court, therefore, finds that the interference in the present case was not carried out in compliance with “conditions provided for by law”. 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 (see Akhverdiyev, cited above, § 99).

20. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

3. OTHER COMPLAINTS

21. As concerns the complaint under Article 6 of the Convention (see paragraph 10 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 question 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

22. The applicants claimed 357,869 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage, which also included an additional 20% compensation under Presidential Decree no. 689 of 26 December 2007 (see Aliyeva and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 66249/16 and 6 others, § 69, 21 September 2021). They relied on the valuation reports submitted before the domestic courts (see paragraph 5 above). They also claimed EUR 7,480 in respect of non‑pecuniary damage and EUR 2,992.22 for costs and expenses.

23. The Government submitted that the amount of compensation claimed by the applicants was excessive and did not reflect the actual value of the property. They further submitted that the applicants had failed to provide any itemised particulars of the costs and expenses allegedly incurred and asked the Court to reject their claims.

24. The Court firstly notes that the applicants did not raise the issue of an additional 20% compensation in their initial application to the Court. It therefore rejects this part of the claim (compare Akhverdiyev v. Azerbaijan (just satisfaction), no. 76254/11, § 31, 21 March 2019).

25. As regards compensation for the buildings in question, the Court firstly notes that the surface area of the first building indicated in the report presented by the applicants was larger than the size mentioned in the ownership document (compare Umid-T LLC v. Azerbaijan [Committee], no. 7949/13, § 21, 29 April 2024). Having regard to its conclusion above in respect of the size of the first building (see paragraph 14 above), and taking into account all the material in its possession, including the report provided by the applicants in respect of the second building, as well as the amount already awarded to the applicants by the domestic courts, the Court awards them jointly EUR 53,000 in respect of pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on this amount.

26. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, as required by Article 41 of the Convention, the Court further awards to the applicants jointly EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on this amount.

27. As to costs and expenses, in the absence of any supporting documents, the Court dismisses the applicants’ claim under this head.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Declares the part of the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning the additional surface area in respect of the first building inadmissible, and the remainder of the complaint admissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;
3. Holds that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the complaint under Article 6 of the Convention;
4. Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay to the applicants jointly, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:

(i) EUR 53,000 (fifty-three thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage;

(ii) EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;

(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;

5. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 23 September 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Olga Chernishova Canòlic Mingorance Cairat
Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applicants: