CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 août 2018

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s38BC2BD4 { width:63.18%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sA7BBC8D6 { width:17.06%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7EA45259 { width:65.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sF0686B86 { width:17.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sF8B8AD15 { width:17.06%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s74DC3D21 { margin-left:33.01pt; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .s4B4351F7 { width:65.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC9F6BAD { width:17.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   Communicated on 30 August 2018   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 32380/13 Rustam Mammad Ibrahim oglu IBRAHIMBEYOV and Others against Azerbaijan lodged on 3 May 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicants are Azerbaijani nationals who live in Baku. They are represented before the Court by Mr F. Agayev, a lawyer practising in Baku. Their particulars are set out in the Appendix. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. On 16 May 1962 the Baku City Council of Workers’ Deputies issued a decision allocating a certain territory including the plots of land in question in Baku to the Bibiheybat Oil and Gas Exploitation Entity (“the Bibiheybat OGEE”) for its use. On 29 July 1999 the head of the Baku City Executive Authority (”the BCEA”) issued an order indicating return of a territory of 266.05 from the the Bibiheybat OGEE to the BCEA. On 26 September 2000 the head of the BCEA issued an order allocating a territory of 198.62 ha to the Sebail Municipality (“the Municipality”). On 30 December 2004 the Municipality issued an order concerning sale of a plot of land of 0.06 ha (“the first plot of land”) to N.G. On the same day the Municipality issued an order concerning sale of a plot of land of 0.06 ha (“the second plot of land”) to M.M. On the same day the Municipality issued an order concerning sale of a plot of land of 0.06 ha (“the third plot of land”) to the first applicant. On 29 October 2006 the Municipality issued a decision concerning sale of a plot of land of 0.18 ha (“the fourth plot of land”) to the first applicant. On 27 November 2006 the State Land and Cartography Committee issued cadastre plans in respect of the plots of land. On 14 December 2006 the State Registry of Real Estate (“the SRORE”) issued a certificate of ownership to N.G. in respect of the first plot of land. On 15 December 2006 the SRORE issued a certificate of ownership to M.M. in respect of the second plot of land. On the same day the SRORE issued a certificate of ownership to the first applicant in respect of the third and fourth plots of land. On 23 July 2009 the second applicant concluded a swap agreement with N.G. and obtained the first plot of land. On the same day M.M. concluded a gift agreement with the first applicant and granted the second plot of land to the first applicant. On 22 August 2009 the SRORE issued a certificate of ownership to the second applicant in respect of the first plot of land. On 15 September 2009 the SRORE issued a certificate of ownership to the first applicant in respect of the second plot of land. On 5 November 2009 the first applicant concluded a gift agreement with the third applicant and transferred the third plot of land to the third applicant. On 10 December 2009 the SRORE issued a certificate of ownership to the third applicant in respect of the third plot of land. As of 10 December 2009 the first applicant owned the second and fourth plots of land, the second applicant owned the first plot of land, and the third applicant owned the third plot of land. On various dates in 2009 the BCEA approved the applicants’ projects for construction of houses on the plots of land. Sometime in 2009 the construction works started. Starting from October 2009 the representatives of the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan Republic (SOCAR) entered the plots of land and hindered the construction works. Starting from March 2010 SOCAR occupied the plots of land and did not allow the applicants’ access to them. On 13 May 2010 the applicants lodged a claim with the Sebail District Court against SOCAR complaining about its occupation of their plots of land. On 16 June 2010 SOCAR lodged a counter-claim against the applicants and the SRORE seeking annulment of the applicants’ certificates of ownership, respective orders and decisions of the Municipality, cadastre plans and the subsequent contracts arguing that the plots of land were in lawful use of the Bibiheybat OGEE, which was the subsidiary of SOCAR. On 31 January 2012 the applicants amended their initial claim requesting also pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage incurred as a result of the unlawful actions of SOCAR. On 16 March 2012 the Sebail District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim and upheld SOCAR’s claim, finding that the plots of land in question had been in SOCAR’s use since 1962 and that therefore, the Municipality had not been entitled to sell them to the applicants and the third parties. The applicants appealed, arguing that (i) the decision of 1962 was not a proper document confirming property rights to the plots of land; (ii) SOCAR had not had any acts of ownership to the plots of land in accordance with the Land Codes of 1970, 1991 and 1999; (iii) the territory covering the plots of land had already been returned to the BCEA, which had allocated it to the Municipality; (iv) even if SOCAR had property rights to the plots of land, the applicants had purchased them from the Municipality and the third parties as bona fide buyers and had been issued certificates of ownership in compliance with the law and, if there had been any wrongdoing this was imputable to the State authorities and not the applicants; and (v) the judgment of the first-instance court was silent about the damage incurred by the applicants as a result of SOCAR’s occupation of the plots of land. On 27 July 2012 the Baku Court of Appeal and on 4 December 2012 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment, reiterating the first-instance court’s reasoning. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the civil proceedings were not fair; in particular that the domestic courts delivered unreasoned judgments by failing to properly verify the compliance of the interference with the applicable domestic legislation. 2.     The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that their certificates of ownership to the plots of land were unlawfully annulled and that they were not paid any compensation. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Were the applicants deprived of their 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? Did the annulment of the certificates of ownership without any compensation impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no.   22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V)?   2.     Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations in the proceedings concerning the violation of their property rights, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicants’ right to a reasoned judgment respected? APPENDIX     No. Applicant’s name Birth year   Rustam IBRAHIMBEYOV 1939   Lala AFANDIYEVA 1966   Shohrat IBRAHIMBEYOVA 1941