CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 juin 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s31290386 { width:117.7%; border-collapse:collapse } .sCA50E69D { width:6.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s5D4220A { width:26.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s28BE94C5 { width:23.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s9CB2386F { width:17.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s4CF5FA84 { width:26.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC9DC8A30 { width:6.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE79F2147 { width:26.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s81B126C { width:23.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .s5C6CD702 { width:17.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .s997A53C9 { width:26.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } Published on 24 June 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 59791/18 Fuzuli NAMAZOV and Others against Azerbaijan lodged on 26 November 2018 communicated on 7 June 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants are neighbours. They brought proceedings before the administrative courts for invalidation of the order issued in 2014 by the head of the Khatai District Executive Authority authorising E.A., a private person, to erect a non-residential building. By a final judgment of 12 April 2017 the Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s judgment granting the applicants’ claim. Relying on an expert evaluation, the courts concluded that the failure to respect the requisite separation distance between the non-residential building, under construction at the relevant time, and the building where the applicants resided, violated the applicants’ rights and that it would negatively affect their living conditions and prevent the sunlight and normal flow of air into their apartments. The applicants also initiated civil proceedings, in parallel to the above ‑ mentioned administrative proceedings, asking the courts to order the demolition of the non-residential building in question. By a final judgment of 13 April 2018 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicants’ claim. Referring also to a new order issued in September 2017 by the head of the same executive authority (authorising again E.A. to erect a non-residential property), the court held, inter alia , that since the construction of the building in question was ongoing, it was impossible at that stage to determine whether there was any violation of the domestic regulations concerning the separation distance. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicants complain that the domestic courts in the civil proceedings failed to address their relevant arguments. They complain, among other things, that their argument, that the new order issued in 2017 could not constitute a valid legal basis for the completion of the building already constructed on the basis of the order issued in 2014, which had been declared invalid by the administrative courts, was not addressed. They also complain that the courts in the civil proceedings failed to take into account the findings of the administrative courts as regards the failure to respect the separation distance between two buildings and its negative effect on their living conditions. The applicants further complain under Article 8 of the Convention of a breach of their right to respect for their home. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the detriment suffered by the applicants on account of the erection of the non-residential building in question sufficiently serious to raise an issue under Article 8 of the Convention? If so, has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their home, contrary to that provision?   2.     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 decision respected?   The parties are requested to submit a copy of the expert evaluation of 9   March 2016. The parties are also invited to provide any other documentary evidence in support of their submissions.       APPENDIX List of applicants:   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Fuzuli NAMAZOV 1981 Azerbaijani Baku 2. Zamin ABBASZADE 1979 Azerbaijani Baku 3. Aziz ALKHANOV 1954 Azerbaijani Baku 4. Shamil HAMZAYEV 1965 Azerbaijani Baku 5. Elmi HASANOV 1976 Azerbaijani Baku 6. Jumshud KARIMLI 1963 Azerbaijani Baku 7. Aydin MAMMADOV 1964 Azerbaijani Baku 8. Ruslan MEHTIKHANOV 1978 Azerbaijani Baku