CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 janvier 2019

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 22 January 2019   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 48710/13 Gudrat AGAYEV against Azerbaijan lodged on 17 July 2013 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns alleged unlawful demolition of the applicant’s shoemaking kiosk and alleged unlawful expropriation of the land underneath the kiosk by the Sumgayit City Executive Authority (SCEA) for landscaping purposes and also failure by the domestic courts to examine the applicant’s claim on the merits. The appellate court terminated the proceedings referring to the unilaterally signed handover act submitted by the SCEA that the dispute had allegedly been settled by provision of a new kiosk to the applicant, whereas according to the applicant it had not been settled because his claim was not about provision of a new kiosk and, in any event, that kiosk had not been provided to him. The applicant’s complaints fall to be examined under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on the account of the domestic courts’ failure to examine his claim on the merits by terminating the proceedings on the ground that it had allegedly been settled?   2.     Has the applicant been 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 to the Convention? If the interference was lawful, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see, mutatis mutandis, Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no.   22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V)?