CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 mai 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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; 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 } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { 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 } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sCDF4D88E { height:65.35pt } .s9589A2DE { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC6B50776 { height:51.2pt } .sD8A582DF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB723F2D { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 21 May 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 41247/17 Vusala Jamal gizi SADIGOVA against Azerbaijan and 3 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 3 May 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the demolition of properties owned by the applicants, except the third applicant in application no. 48155/18 who was registered as living in the property in question, by various private companies acting on the basis of decisions issued by the local executive authorities in the framework of demolition of buildings, allegedly not in conformity with the city-planning norms and in a state of disrepair, and the construction of new multi-story buildings in their place. The applicants in applications nos. 41247/17, 4791/18 and 26324/18 were awarded monetary compensation by the domestic courts. The applicants in application no. 48155/18, however, were not awarded any such compensation as the courts decided that they would be allocated new flats in the building to be constructed by the private company. Relying on Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, all applicants complain that they have been unlawfully deprived of their possessions and that the domestic courts’ judgments in their cases had not been duly reasoned. The applicants in applications nos. 41247/17, 4791/18 and 26324/18 complain under Article 8 of the Convention about a violation of their right to respect for their home. Relying on Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 to the Convention, they also complain that they were not afforded a remedy providing effective protection against the violation of their rights. The applicant in application no. 41247/17 further complains that, as she objected to demolition of her property, she was unlawfully arrested and detained in the police station for several hours. COMMON 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.     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)?   3.     The parties are requested to inform the Court of any factual developments concerning the present applications.   CASE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS Application no. 41247/17   1.     Was the applicant deprived of her liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? If so, has she exhausted all effective domestic remedies, in respect of her complaint under Article 5 § 1, as required by Article 35 §   1 of the Convention?   2.     Did the applicant’s deprivation of liberty fall within paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) of this provision (see Khalikova v. Azerbaijan , no. 42883/11, §§   111-14, 22 October 2015)?   3.     The parties are requested to submit a copy of the detention record (if   any), as well as copies of appeals, domestic courts’ decisions and any other relevant document concerning the applicant’s detention.   Applications nos. 41247/17, 4791/18 and 26324/18   1.     Can the applicants still claim to be victims of the alleged violations of the Convention, within the meaning of Article   34 of the Convention? In particular, was the amount of compensation awarded to the applicants at the domestic level adequate and sufficient (see, mutatis mutandis , Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §   93, ECHR 2006 ‑ V, and Romokhov v. Russia , no.   4532/04, §§ 90-114, 16   December 2010)?   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.     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?   Application no. 48155/18   The parties are requested to submit a copy of the Supreme Court’s judgment of 4 July 2018.       APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Property in question Represented by 1. 41247/17   Sadigova v.   Azerbaijan   30/05/2017 Vusala SADIGOVA 1969 Baku A flat Khalid BAGIROV 2. 4791/18   Sharifzade v.   Azerbaijan   18/01/2018 Ulviyya SHARIFZADE 1962 Baku A flat Fuad AGAYEV 3. 26324/18   Mir-Bagirova v.   Azerbaijan   29/05/2018 Violette MIR ‑ BAGIROVA 1961 Baku A flat Fuad AGAYEV 4. 48155/18   Abdurahmanov and Others v.   Azerbaijan   01/10/2018 Ismat ABDURAHMANOV 1965 Baku   1/12 of a house Sevinj ALIYEVA Gulnaz ALIZADE 1964 Baku   Three rooms in a house Asif HASANOV 1961 Baku A house