MAMMADOV proti Ázerbajdžánu

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN

(Application no. 22252/16)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

5 May 2026

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

In the case of Mammadov 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. 22252/16) 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 11 April 2016 by a Russian national, Mr Vahid Yagub oglu Mammadov (Vahid Yaqub oğlu Məmmədov – “the applicant”), who was born in 1954 and lives in Moscow, and was represented by Mr M. Mustafayev, 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 fact that the Russian Government did not express the wish to intervene in the present case (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 1 of the Rules of Court);

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated in private on 31 March 2026,

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

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint that he had received inadequate compensation for unlawful demolition of his property.

2. The applicant owned a house which was in the shared ownership of the applicant and two other individuals. According to a certificate of title (qeydiyyat vəsiqəsi) issued to one of those persons, dated 1 November 2001, one half of the house belonged to the applicant. The total surface area of the house was 250.1 sq. m, of which 134.2 sq. m constituted residential area.

3. On 18 October 2012 the Baku City Executive Authority issued an order for the demolition of the house in question, along with other buildings in the Khatai district, for the purpose of constructing a car park. According to the order, the relocation of the residents was to be carried out at the expense of A. company. On 5 June 2013 the Baku City Executive Authority made several amendments to the order, including the substitution of A. company with P.A. Housing Construction Cooperative (“P.A.”).

4. According to the applicant, in November 2012 P.A. demolished the applicant’s property.

5. On an unspecified date the applicant brought proceedings against P.A. before the Khatai District Court, requesting the court to award him 809,760 Azerbaijani manats (AZN) for the loss of his property and AZN 161,952 for an additional 20% compensation under Presidential Decree no. 689 of 26 December 2007 (“the additional 20% compensation”). He argued that the total surface area of the property was 192.8 sq. m and that his share of the property comprised 71.4 sq. m of residential area, 75.1 sq. m of non-residential area, two garages measuring 20.5 sq. m each and a sanitary facility of 5.3 sq. m. In the calculation of the value, he relied on the purchase agreement concluded by one of the other two co-owners of the house in 2013.

6. On 29 May 2013, while the court proceedings were ongoing, the applicant was issued an ownership certificate. According to the certificate, the total surface area of the house was 250.1 sq. m, comprising 134.2 sq. m of residential area and 115.9 sq. m of non-residential area. The applicant’s share consisted of five rooms within the nine-room house, amounting to 71.4 sq. m of residential and 75.1 sq. m of non-residential area. The property also included two garages, each measuring 20.5 sq. m, and a sanitary facility of 5.3 sq. m, however the certificate did not indicate the applicant’s or the two other co-owners’ shares in that part of the property.

7. On 16 December 2013 the Khatai District Court ordered an expert examination to determine the market value of the demolished property.

8. On 12 May 2014 the expert submitted to the court a letter containing his responses to the questions posed by the court. On the basis of the technical parameters stated in the ownership certificate (see paragraph 6 above), the expert concluded that the estimated market value of the demolished house was between AZN 285,000 and AZN 295,000 (equivalent to between approximately 263,850 euros (EUR) and EUR 273,100 at the relevant time). It appears from the letter that in reaching that conclusion, the expert took into account the average value of similar properties in the area in question.

9. On 11 June 2014 the Khatai District Court allowed the applicant’s claim in part. The court established that the demolition had been conducted by the respondent on account of the needs of the State and ordered the respondent to pay AZN 354,000 (comprising AZN 295,000 for the house and AZN 59,000 for the additional 20% compensation) to the applicant. The amount was determined on the basis of the expert’s above-mentioned letter (see paragraph 8 above).

10. The applicant appealed, mainly arguing about the amount of compensation. He relied on the letter submitted by the expert to the first‑instance court (see paragraph 8 above) and the above-mentioned purchase agreement (see paragraph 5 above).

11. On 7 May 2015 the Baku Court of Appeal partially quashed the judgment of the first-instance court and ordered the respondent to pay AZN 107,360 to the applicant for the unlawful demolition of the house. The court noted that the applicant had obtained the ownership certificate after the demolition of his property, and it held that, therefore, the size of the applicant’s share in the house had to be determined on the basis of the certificate of title issued in 2001, which indicated that the applicant owned one half of the house (see paragraph 2 above). However, the court, without giving any reasons, took into account only half of the residential area, that is, 67.1 sq. m, when awarding him compensation. The court further noted that “the first-instance court [had] established that” the market value per square metre of the residential area was AZN 1,600. The court also held that the additional 20% compensation could not be granted, as the demolition had not been carried out in respect of the needs of the State.

12. The applicant lodged a cassation appeal, raising the same arguments (see paragraph 10 above).

13. On 20 October 2015 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal, reiterating the same reasoning (see paragraph 11 above) and adding that the applicant had failed to present evidence concerning the non‑residential area of the house.

14. The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the domestic courts had failed to afford him adequate redress for the unlawful demolition of his property. He further complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the domestic courts had failed to give reasons for their judgments.

• THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
  1. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 of protocol No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION
     1. Admissibility
        1. Possessions

15. In the present case, according to the certificate of title issued in 2001, the applicant owned one half of the house of 250.1 sq. m. However, the ownership certificate obtained by the applicant in 2013 indicated that the applicant owned 71.4 sq. m of residential and 75.1 sq. m of non-residential area, that is, a total of 146.5 sq. m (see paragraphs 2 and 6 above). Before the domestic courts and the Court, the applicant argued that his share of the property measured 192.8 sq. m (see paragraph 5 above). The Government, relying on the domestic court’s reasoning, argued that the applicant’s share amounted to 67.2 sq. m (see paragraph 11 above).

16. The Court observes that the above-mentioned ownership certificate was obtained by the applicant approximately six months after the demolition of his property and was not accepted by the domestic courts when determining the size of his share (see paragraphs 11 and 13 above). The applicant did not submit any specific arguments in that regard or provide any explanation before either the domestic courts or the Court as regards the difference between the sizes indicated in the certificate of title and the ownership certificate. In the particular circumstances of the present case, and in the absence of substantiated arguments to the contrary, the Court concludes that the applicant owned one half of the house with a total surface area of 250.1 sq. m (that is, 125.5 sq. m), as indicated in the certificate of title.

17. The Court further notes that it cannot be established that the applicant’s claim in respect of the additional surface area of the house beyond the size mentioned in the certificate of title amounted to his “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (compare Abdullayeva and Others v. Azerbaijan [Committee], no. 39342/14, § 14, 23 September 2025). 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.

2. Victim status

18. The Government argued that the applicant could not claim to be a victim of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention because the domestic courts had established a violation of his property rights and had awarded him adequate compensation. The applicant maintained his complaint.

19. The Court considers that, in the particular circumstances of the case, the Government’s objection is so closely connected to the merits of the applicant’s complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that it should be joined to the merits (see, for a similar approach, Khizanishvili and Kandelaki v. Georgia, no. 25601/12, § 44, 17 December 2019). The Court notes that the complaint, excluding the part related to the additional surface area, 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.

2. Merits

20. The applicable principles under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention have been summarised in, among other cases, Vistiņš and Perepjolkins v. Latvia ([GC], no. 71243/01, §§ 95-99 and 108-14, 25 October 2012).

21. As regards the applicant’s complaint concerning the lawfulness of the demolition, the domestic courts found that the applicant’s building had been demolished unlawfully (see paragraph 11 above). They therefore acknowledged the violation of his property rights. They also awarded him compensation, the amount of which the applicant contested. The Court will consider the question at the core of the applicant’s complaint, namely whether the compensation awarded to him was adequate. While the domestic courts are normally in a better position to determine the existence and quantum of pecuniary damage (see Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 203, ECHR 2006-V), the Court has jurisdiction to assess whether the compensation was reasonably related to the value of the property taken, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Khizanishvili and Kandelaki, cited above, § 50).

22. The Court, firstly, observes that, in determining the size of the applicant’s share, the domestic courts relied on the certificate of title, which indicated that he owned one half of the house. However, they took into consideration only the residential area (134.2 sq. m) and awarded him compensation for 67.1 sq. m, without giving any reasons as to why they chose to do so (see paragraphs 11 and 13 above).

23. The Court further observes that, whereas the expert informed the first‑instance court that he estimated the market value of the applicant’s property at between AZN 285,000 and AZN 295,000 (see paragraph 8 above), the appellate court noted that the first-instance court had established that the price per square metre of the residential space was AZN 1,600. However, no such conclusion can be found in the text of the first-instance court’s judgment. From all the material available to the Court, it remains unclear which expert report, if any, served as the basis for this valuation. Moreover, while the applicant argued that the other co-owners had sold their shares for a much higher price (see paragraph 5 above), the domestic courts did not address that argument.

24. It follows that the domestic courts failed to provide adequate reasoning for the approach followed and for the level of compensation awarded (compare Khizanishvili and Kandelaki, cited above, § 58; Sadigov v. Azerbaijan [Committee], no. 48665/13, § 27, 22 April 2025; and Islamzade v. Azerbaijan [Committee], no. 9504/14, § 19, 23 September 2025).

25. In the light of the foregoing considerations, the Court concludes that the applicant was not awarded full compensation in respect of the unlawful demolition of his property. The Court therefore dismisses the Government’s objection concerning his victim status. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

2. OTHER COMPLAINTS

26. Turning to the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 of the Convention (see paragraph 14 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 this 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

27. In respect of pecuniary damage, the applicant claimed 833,513 Azerbaijani manats (AZN) for the demolished property and AZN 595,788 for the interest on that amount. He also claimed 50,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non‑pecuniary damage.

28. The Government asked the Court to reject the applicant’s claims, maintaining that the domestic courts had awarded adequate compensation to the applicant.

29. The Court notes that none of the parties presented a valuation report when submitting their observations. The Government referred to the findings of the domestic courts without reference to a particular report and the applicant referred to the letter submitted by the expert to the first-instance court and the purchase agreement (see paragraphs 5 and 8 above).

30. In view of these considerations and taking into account all the material in its possession, the compensation already received by the applicant and the applicable statutory interest rates of the Central Bank of Azerbaijan, the Court considers it reasonable to award him EUR 151,250 in respect of pecuniary damage.

31. The Court further accepts that the applicant suffered some distress as a result of the violation and awards him EUR 3,000 in respect of non‑pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.

32. The applicant did not submit a claim in respect of costs and expenses. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award him any sum on that account.

• 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 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
   1. that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, 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:
      1. EUR 151,250 (one hundred and fifty‑one thousand two hundred and fifty euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage;
      2. EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
   2. 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 applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 5 May 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Olga Chernishova Canòlic Mingorance Cairat
Deputy Registrar President