CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 octobre 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 11 October 2017   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 42574/13 Nazim MAMMADOV against Azerbaijan lodged on 20 June 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Nazim Mammadov, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1954 and lives in Goygol. He is represented before the Court by Mr. H. Hasanov, a lawyer practising in Baku. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. By virtue of its decision of 11 March 2004, the Gadabay District R.   Aliyev Village Municipality (“the Municipality”) sold a plot of land measuring 0.08 ha in R. Aliyev village to the applicant. On 12 March 2004 the applicant and the Municipality concluded a deed of sale in respect of the plot of land. On 15 February 2005 the applicant was issued with a certificate of title to that plot of land. By a decision of 30 June 2010 the Municipality annulled its previous decision of 11 March 2004. On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a claim with the Ganja Administrative-Economic Court against the Municipality seeking annulment of the Municipality’s decision of 30 June 2010 in the part concerning his plot of land, the cessation of the interference with his property rights, and compensation in respect of pecuniary damage. On 3 April 2012 the Municipality lodged a claim with the Ganja Administrative-Economic Court against the applicant, asking that the decision of 11 March 2004 be declared void and seeking annulment of the applicant’s certificate of title and the deed of sale of 12 March 2004. The Municipality argued that the plot of land had been in common use as part of a park and its sale to the applicant had therefore been unlawful. On 30 May 2012 the first-instance court granted the Municipality’s claims. The court also granted the applicant’s claim concerning annulment of the decision of 30 June 2010. The applicant appealed, arguing that the plot of land had not been part of the park and had therefore not been in common use. He referred to letters dated 10 July 2012 and 14 August 2012 from the State Land and Cartography Office (“the SCLO”) which stated that the plot of land had not been part of a park. On 13 September 2012 the Ganja Court of Appeal and on 9 January 2013 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment, reiterating the first-instance court’s reasoning. The courts referred to a letter from the SCLO dated 12   September 2012 which stated that the plot of land had been in common use, without specifying the type of use. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that his title to the plot of land was unlawfully annulled without any compensation.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1. Was the applicant deprived of his possessions in the public interest, and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? In particular, what type of common use did the plot of land in question fall under, as provided for in Article 47 of the Land Code?   2. Did the annulment of title without any compensation impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Immobiliare Saffi v.   Italy, [GC], no.   22774/93, §   59, ECHR 1999-V)?