CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 février 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 26 February 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 31618/18 Yelena Gennadyevna MAMMADOVA and Zaur Elchin oglu MAMMADOV against Azerbaijan lodged on 29 June 2018 communicated on 9 February 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the demolition of the applicants’ flat of which they had shared ownership rights. On 25 February 2016 the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Azerbaijan adopted a decision entrusting the local executive authorities of several districts in Baku with, inter alia , taking relevant steps for (i) the demolition of buildings which were not in conformity with the city-planning norms and in state of disrepair, (ii) construction of new multi-story buildings and (iii) provision of flats from those buildings to property owners in the buildings to be demolished. On 28 March 2016 the Sabail District Executive Authority (“SDEA”) issued an order authorising F.B., a private company, to demolish the building where the applicants’ flat was situated and to construct a new multi-story building in its place. According to that order, allocation of new flats to property owners and payment of their relocation and temporary rental expenses had to be ensured through the company’s funds. The applicants brought proceedings against the SDEA asking the domestic courts to declare its order of 28 March 2016 invalid. It appears that, while the proceedings were pending, the applicants’ flat was demolished. By a final judgment of 30 January 2018 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicants’ action. The applicants also lodged a civil claim against the company F.B. complaining that the demolition of their flat without any court order had been unlawful and asked the courts to award them pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. By a final judgment of 24 October 2018 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicants’ claim. Relying on Articles 6 § 1, 8, and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicants complain about violation of their Convention rights. They allege, in particular, that they were unlawfully deprived of their flat without any compensation. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicants’ right to a reasoned judgment respected?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2?   3.     Have the applicants been 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 to the Convention?   What was the law applicable to the relevant form of deprivation of property? What were the substantive and procedural conditions required by the applicable law for the relevant form of deprivation of property to be lawful, and were those conditions complied with in the present case?   If the interference was lawful, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants (see, mutatis mutandis, Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no.   22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V)?   4.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?   5.     The parties are requested to provide information as to whether the applicants were subsequently provided with a new flat by the company F.B.