GURBANOVA proti Ázerbajdžánu

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF GURBANOVA v. AZERBAIJAN

(Application no. 16276/13)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

8 July 2025

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

In the case of Gurbanova 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. 16276/13) 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 28 February 2013 by an Azerbaijani national, Ms Suraya Gulaga gizi Gurbanova (Sürayə Gülağa qızı Qurbanova - “the applicant”), who was born in 1964, lives in Baku and was represented Mr F. Agayev, a lawyer based in Azerbaijan;

the decision to give notice of the complaints under Articles 6, 8 and Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention to the Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Əsgərov, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated in private on 17 June 2025,

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

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1. The present case mainly concerns the applicant’s complaint regarding the allegedly unlawful demolition and expropriation of her property.

2. According to the case file, the applicant was the owner of two flats measuring 124.8 sq. m and 96.55 sq. m in the same building in Baku (copies of ownership documents were not submitted to the Court).

3. Following an inspection of that building, the Ministry of Emergencies informed the Baku City Executive Authority (“the BCEA”) by letter that the building was in a state of urgent disrepair as a result of the 2000 earthquake, making further use of it impossible. Upon receipt of the letter, the BCEA instructed the Sabail District Executive Authority (“the SDEA”) to demolish the building. In November 2009 the State authorities began demolishing the building and the applicant had to leave her flats.

4. The applicant brought civil proceedings against the BCEA and the SDEA in the Sabail District Court, requesting that the court acknowledge the actions of the defendant authorities regarding the demolition of her flats as a violation of her property rights. She also sought, without providing any valuation report, compensation in respect of pecuniary damage (comprising 2,400,000 Azerbaijani manats (AZN) for the demolished building and AZN 500,000 for renovation expenses) and AZN 100,000 in respect of non‑pecuniary damage.

5. By a judgment of 22 October 2010, the Sabail District Court allowed the applicant’s claim in part, awarding her AZN 455,095 (approximately 406,000 euros (EUR) at the relevant time). In establishing the amount of compensation, the court based its decision on the valuation report it had commissioned, according to which the market value of the property in question was AZN 2,056 per square metre. The court found that the flats in question had been deemed unsafe and had therefore been demolished by the competent State authorities. The court relied on, inter alia, Article 28 of the Housing Code, which established an explicit procedure for the reconstruction and renovation of flats and residential buildings in a state of urgent disrepair.

6. Following an appeal by the applicant, that judgment was subsequently upheld by the Baku Court of Appeal on 23 May 2011.

7. On 31 October 2011 a further appeal by the applicant was granted in part by the Supreme Court, which quashed the appellate court’s judgment and remitted the case for fresh examination.

8. On 15 February 2012 the Baku Court of Appeal once again dismissed the applicant’s appeal. That judgment was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court on 29 August 2012.

9. It appears from the documents submitted by the Government that the judgment of 29 August 2012 was enforced on an unspecified date between 5 February and 25 December 2013 and the applicant received the full amount awarded to her.

10. The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that she had been unlawfully deprived of her property and that the amount of compensation awarded to her had been inadequate. She also complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the domestic courts’ final judgment (see paragraph 8 above) had not been enforced in a timely manner. The applicant further complained under Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention that the domestic courts had failed to substantiate their findings, that she had been unlawfully deprived of her “home” and that she had not had an effective domestic remedy at her disposal for protecting her Convention rights.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

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

11. It was not disputed by the parties that the flats in question constituted the applicant’s “possessions”.

12. The applicant claimed that the land underlying the building in which her flats had been situated also constituted her “possession”. However, under the provisions of domestic law the land underlying and attached to an apartment building was in the common, shared ownership of the owners of the flats in the building, who did not have the right to divide in kind or sell their shares or to perform other acts aimed at the separate alienation of their respective shares. The Court has already held that such shares could not be regarded as separate “possessions” as such because they were attached to an apartment in the building of which they formed a part, thus constituting one whole property (see Bagirova and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 37706/17 and 5 others, § 38, 31 August 2023). It follows that this part of the complaint 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.

13. The Court further notes that the part of the complaint concerning the flats 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. In the present case, there was an interference with the applicant’s possessions, as the building in which her flats had been situated was demolished by the State authorities. The interference amounted to a “deprivation of possessions” within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It remains to be seen, however, whether this deprivation was “subject to the conditions provided for by law”.

15. The applicable principles concerning Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 have been summarised in, inter alia, 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).

16. The Court observes that Article 28 of the Housing Code establishes an explicit procedure consisting of several steps for the reconstruction and renovation of flats and residential buildings in a state of urgent disrepair. The fact that a flat or the building in which it is situated is indeed in such a condition and impossible to renovate has to be confirmed by a court decision. If the owner refuses to demolish or rebuild the property within the time-limit set by the court, it can be sold at a public auction or purchased directly by the State.

17. In the present case, no court decision regarding the condition of the building in which the applicant’s flats were situated or the impossibility of renovating them was obtained prior to their demolition, and, consequently, the relevant domestic procedure was not followed.

18. The foregoing considerations are sufficient for the Court to conclude 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 (compare Akhverdiyev, cited above, § 99).

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

2. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

20. In their observations submitted to the Court, relying on supporting documents, the Government noted that the Supreme Court’s judgment of 29 August 2012 had been fully enforced. In her observations submitted in reply to the Government’s observations, the applicant argued, without submitting any document, that the relevant judgment had been enforced with a delay of more than a year.

21. It appears from the case file that the relevant sum was paid to the applicant in full sometime in 2013, after the present application was lodged (see paragraph 9 above). While the applicant argued that the judgment was enforced with a delay of more than one year, she failed to indicate the exact date when she received the payment and to provide any documentary evidence in that regard. In such circumstances, and having regard to its case‑law on the subject (see, for example, Huseynov v. Azerbaijan (dec.) [Committee], no. 51435/10, 1 December 2015, with further references), the Court concludes that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

3. OTHER COMPLAINTS

22. As concerns the complaints under Articles 6, 8 and 13 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

23. The applicant claimed 1,400,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage, comprising of amounts for (i) the market value of her properties, (ii) an additional 20% compensation under Presidential Decree no. 689 of 26 December 2007 and (iii) 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). She further submitted that adjustments for inflation and interest rates should be awarded. The applicant also claimed EUR 20,000 in respect of non‑pecuniary damage, 2,500 Azerbaijani manats (AZN) in respect of fees for legal representation before the Court and an additional AZN 120 for postal expenses.

24. The Government asked the Court to reject the applicant’s claims under all heads, arguing that they were unsubstantiated and excessive.

25. The Court firstly notes that the applicant received AZN 455,095 for her property based on the court-commissioned report (see paragraph 5 above). The applicant did not submit any valuation report in respect of her flats either in the domestic courts or before the Court (compare Gasimov and Suleymanov v. Azerbaijan [Committee] (dec.), nos. 17894/13 and 65356/13, § 15, 21 January 2025). In such circumstances, and in the absence of substantiated arguments to the contrary, the Court dismisses the part of the applicant’s claim in respect of the market value of her property (compare Karimova v. Azerbaijan [Committee], no. 70227/14, § 25, 25 February 2025). The Court further notes that the applicant never claimed an additional 20% compensation and compensation for hardship in her complaints before the domestic courts and in her initial application to the Court. It therefore rejects these parts of the claim as well (compare Akhverdiyev v. Azerbaijan (just satisfaction), no. 76254/11, § 31, 21 March 2019).

26. However, making its assessment on an equitable basis, as required by Article 41 of the Convention, the Court awards the applicant 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, having regard to the documents submitted by the applicant, the Court awards her EUR 1,000 for legal costs, and EUR 23 for postal expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.

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 flats admissible, and the remainder of that complaint inadmissible;
2. Declares the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention regarding the non-enforcement of final judgment inadmissible;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;
4. Holds that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints under Articles 6 (right to a reasoned judgment), 8 and 13 of the Convention;
5. Holds

(a) 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:

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

(ii) EUR 1,023 (one thousand and twenty-three euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;

(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;

6. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 8 July 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Olga Chernishova Canòlic Mingorance Cairat
Deputy Registrar President