CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 juillet 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 11 August 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 8797/18 AZEKO AZERBAIJANI AMERICAN JOINT ENTERPRISE against Azerbaijan lodged on 5 February 2018 communicated on 22 July 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the demolition of a non-residential building constructed by the applicant company in 1999 on a plot of land that was temporarily allocated for its use in 1993 by the order of the Baku City Executive Authority. The order stated that, upon commencement of construction of a new seaside park, the applicant company was to remove the existing structures on the plot of land at its own cost. On an unspecified date in July-August 2013, the building was demolished by the State authorities, allegedly without a prior notice to the applicant company and without paying any compensation, for the purpose of building the seaside park and road. The applicant company brought proceedings against the State Committee on Property Issues seeking compensation for the alleged unlawful demolition of its property. Following a series of appeals and a remittal, the Supreme Court, in its final judgment of 18 October 2017, upheld the appeal court’s judgment. The courts held that the applicant company had failed to obtain relevant authorisations from the State authorities prior to starting construction works and to register its title to the building in question, and concluded that it was an unauthorised construction. They further held that the applicant company could not claim any compensation because, in accordance with the above-mentioned order, the plot of land had been allocated to its temporary use and it had an obligation to remove the existing structures at its own cost. Relying on Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant company complains that it was unlawfully deprived of its property and that the domestic courts failed to provide adequate reasoning for their judgments. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant company have a fair hearing in the determination of its civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant company’s right to a reasoned decision respected (see, for example, Mazahir Jafarov v. Azerbaijan, no.   39331/09, §§ 33-36, 2 April 2020)?   2.     Did the building in question constitute the applicant company’s “possession”? Had the applicant company obtained all necessary authorisations prior to commencing the construction of the building in question? Considering that the plot of land on which the building in question was erected was allocated to the applicant company’s temporary use, what was the applicable law concerning the registration of property rights to such buildings at the relevant time?   3.     Has the applicant company been deprived of its 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?   a) If so, did that deprivation impose an excessive burden on the applicant company (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy , [GC], no. 22774/93, §   59, ECHR   1999-V)? b) 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?   4.     Was the applicant company notified about the intended demolition? If so, when?   The parties are requested to provide documentary evidence in support of their submissions that have not been submitted to the Court so far (in particular, prior written notice addressed to the applicant company concerning the intended demolition (if any), the applicant company’s appeal against the judgment of 25 May 2016, orders nos. 69 and 225 of the Baku City Executive Authority dated 12 March 1997 and 10 June 2013 respectively, the record ( akt ) of 17 February 1999 drawn up by the State Committee on Property Issues and any other relevant document).