YUNUSOVA A YUNUSOV proti Ázerbajdžánu

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF YUNUSOVA AND YUNUSOV v. AZERBAIJAN

(Application no. 67180/11)

JUDGMENT
(Just satisfaction)

STRASBOURG

23 September 2025

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

In the case of Yunusova and Yunusov 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 deliberated in private on 2 September 2025,

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

PROCEDURE

1. The case mainly concerns the applicants’ complaints about the allegedly unlawful expropriation of their properties by the State authorities.

2. In a judgment delivered on 11 July 2024 (“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 Yunusova and Yunusov v. Azerbaijan [Committee], no. 67180/11, §§ 16-17 and point 3 of the operative provisions, 11 July 2024). It also held that there had been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention as the domestic courts’ final judgment had not been enforced, and that it was not necessary to examine the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints (ibid., §§ 22 and 23 and points 4-5 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., § 26 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.

THE LAW

ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

6. 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

7. Each applicant originally claimed 610,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage, which included (i) compensation for the properties, (ii) an additional 20% compensation under Presidential Decree no. 689 of 26 December 2007 (“the additional 20% compensation”), (iii) an additional 10% compensation under Article 66 of the Law on the Expropriation of Land for State Needs (“compensation for hardship”) (see Aliyeva and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 66249/16 and 6 others, §§ 69-70, 21 September 2021), and (iv) adjustments for interest on the basis of the applicable rates of the Central Bank, without specifying the amounts (“the adjustments for interest”).

8. In their observations following the delivery of the principal judgment, the applicants partly reduced their claims, taking account of the fact that in the principal judgment the Court had held that the part of the complaint concerning their claims in respect of the plot of land underlying and attached to the building where their flats had been situated was incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention and the Protocols thereto. Each applicant claimed EUR 350,000 in respect of pecuniary damage, which included compensation for the properties, the additional 20% compensation, compensation for hardship and the adjustments for interest. The applicants did not present any valuation report, despite the Court’s explicit request in that regard (see paragraph 4 above). They relied, instead, on the letter from a private company indicating the market value of their properties (209,440 Azerbaijani manats (“AZN”)), which had been presented before the domestic courts and submitted together with their just satisfaction claims before the Court.

9. The Government provided an expert valuation in respect of the properties in question, which estimated their market value together with adjustments. The Government admitted that the domestic courts’ judgment awarding the applicants compensation (see paragraph 2 above) remained unenforced.

2. The Court’s assessment

10. The Court firstly refers to its findings in the principal judgment (paragraphs 13-14) concerning the applicants’ possessions. In particular, it held that the applicants’ two flats (with surface areas of 38 sq. m and 57.2 sq. m) constituted their “possessions”.

11. As to the applicants’ claims concerning the additional 20% compensation and compensation for hardship, the Court notes that the applicants had not raised the issue of the applicability of the relevant provisions (see paragraph 7 above) in their claims before the domestic courts. Nor had they 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, and Bagvanov and Others v. Azerbaijan [Committee] (just satisfaction), nos. 77919/11 and 13 others, § 15, 14 January 2025).

12. 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).

13. In this connection, the Court firstly notes that the letter 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 supporting data. The letter 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).

14. The Court reiterates that it is for applicants to show that pecuniary damage has resulted from the violation 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).

15. 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 to submit written observations in the latter case to ensure that the application of Article 41 is ready for decision (see Maharramov, cited above, § 19).

16. In these circumstances, the Court will proceed on the basis of the valuation submitted by the Government.

17. The Court observes that the sum which had been awarded to the applicants by the domestic courts remains unpaid to date. While stressing that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to enforce the relevant final domestic judgment which remains enforceable, the Court considers that this amount should be subtracted from the pecuniary award to be made in the present judgment (compare Bagvanov and Others, cited above, § 21).

18. Having regard to the above considerations, the Court awards the applicants jointly EUR 11,000 plus any tax that may be chargeable on those amounts.

2. Non-pecuniary damage

19. Each applicant claimed EUR 100,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

20. The Government submitted that the amounts claimed were excessive.

21. In their observations following the delivery of the principal judgment each applicant claimed EUR 150,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, arguing that the domestic courts judgment remained unenforced.

22. Ruling on an equitable basis, as required by Article 41 of the Convention, the Court awards the applicants jointly the sum of EUR 4,700 under this head for the violation of Article 6 of the Convention (non‑enforcement of final judgment) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.

3. Costs and expenses

23. Each applicant claimed EUR 5,000 in respect of legal fees for their representation before the domestic courts and the Court. The first applicant claimed, in addition, AZN 200 for postal expenses.

24. 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.

25. 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.

26. The Court notes that the part of the claims in respect of legal expenses is not supported by documentary evidence and must therefore be rejected (compare Malik Babayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 30500/11, § 97, 1 June 2017). Having regard to the receipts provided by the first applicant, the Court awards her EUR 72 for postal expenses.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, plus any tax that may be chargeable, 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;

2. 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: