CASE OF ALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Aliyev v. Azerbaijan:
The case concerns the demolition of Mr. Aliyev’s shop in Gadabay, Azerbaijan, by the Gadabay District Executive Authority (GDEA). The applicant complained that the demolition was unlawful and that he did not receive adequate compensation. The Court found that the demolition violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention, which protects the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions. The Court found that the GDEA lacked the authority to order the expropriation and that the in-kind compensation offered (a space in a new shopping center) was not adequate because the applicant had not consented to it and had requested monetary compensation.
**Structure and Main Provisions:**
* The judgment begins by outlining the background of the case, including the applicant’s complaint and the Government’s response.
* It then assesses the alleged violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, examining whether there was an interference with the applicant’s property rights, whether the interference was lawful, and whether a fair balance was struck between the public interest and the applicant’s rights.
* The Court emphasizes that the GDEA did not have the legal authority to order the expropriation of private property.
* The judgment highlights that the applicant’s consent was necessary for the allocation of alternative commercial space as compensation, and the domestic courts failed to address the applicant’s request for monetary compensation.
* The Court concludes that the demolition was not carried out in accordance with the “conditions provided for by law,” leading to a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
* The Court also addresses the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 regarding the right to a reasoned judgment but finds it unnecessary to examine it separately.
* Finally, the judgment addresses the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) and reserves the matter for further consideration, inviting both parties to submit observations on the issue of compensation.
**Key Provisions for Use:**
* The decision reinforces the principle that any interference with an individual’s property rights must be lawful and carried out by a competent authority.
* It emphasizes the importance of obtaining the property owner’s consent when offering in-kind compensation for expropriation.
* The judgment highlights the obligation of domestic courts to address relevant arguments raised by applicants in property rights cases.
CASE OF FORTUZI v. ALBANIA
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Fortuzi v. Albania:
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that Albania violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms due to the excessive length of civil proceedings concerning Mr. Gazmend Fortuzi’s property rights and his denied access to the Constitutional Court. The case originated from Mr. Fortuzi’s challenge to administrative decisions that rejected his claim for property restitution, a process that began in 1995. The Court found that the domestic proceedings, lasting over seven years across multiple jurisdictions, were unreasonably prolonged. Additionally, the ECtHR concluded that the Constitutional Court’s dismissal of Mr. Fortuzi’s complaint, based on a misinterpretation of the time limit for submission, infringed upon his right to access the court.
The judgment is structured around the subject matter of the case, the Court’s assessment, and the application of Article 41 of the Convention. It begins by outlining the factual background, including the applicant’s initial claim for property restitution, the subsequent administrative and civil proceedings, and the Constitutional Court’s decision. The Court then assesses the admissibility and merits of the applicant’s complaints regarding the length of proceedings and access to the Constitutional Court, referencing established principles from previous case law. The decision highlights the delays in serving court judgments to the applicant, contributing to the overall excessive length of the proceedings. Regarding access to the Constitutional Court, the judgment emphasizes the lack of clarity from the domestic court on how to prove the date of notification of a decision and the burden of proof in such cases. Finally, the Court addresses the application of Article 41, noting that the applicant did not submit a specific claim for just satisfaction.
The most important provisions of this decision are those concerning the violation of Article 6 § 1 due to the length of proceedings and the denial of access to the Constitutional Court. The Court underscored that delays in serving court judgments contributed to the excessive length of the proceedings, a critical point for ensuring the efficiency of the justice system. Furthermore, the Court’s emphasis on the Constitutional Court’s misinterpretation of the time limit for submitting a complaint and the lack of clarity on proving the date of notification highlights the importance of fair and accessible judicial procedures.
CASE OF SADIGOV v. AZERBAIJAN
Here’s a breakdown of the Sadigov v. Azerbaijan decision from the European Court of Human Rights:
1. **Essence of the Decision:** The case concerns the unlawful demolition of the applicant’s property by the Tartar District Executive Authority in Azerbaijan. The Court found that although domestic courts acknowledged the violation of the applicant’s property rights and awarded some compensation, the compensation was inadequate. The core issue was whether the compensation awarded to the applicant was sufficient, considering the demolition was ordered without prior notice or fair compensation. The Court determined that the appellate court failed to provide adequate reasoning for the level of compensation awarded, especially when two different valuation reports presented significantly different market values for the property. Ultimately, the Court ruled that Azerbaijan violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention, which protects the right to property.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* The decision begins by outlining the background of the case, including the applicant’s initial acquisition of the property, its subsequent demolition, and the domestic court proceedings.
* It details the conflicting valuation reports presented during the domestic proceedings, highlighting the significant discrepancy in the estimated market value of the demolished property.
* The Court addresses the Government’s objection regarding the applicant’s victim status, ultimately joining it to the merits of the case and dismissing it.
* The decision emphasizes the principles of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, particularly concerning the requirement of fair compensation in cases of property deprivation.
* It concludes that the domestic courts failed to provide adequate reasoning for the compensation awarded, leading to a violation of the applicant’s property rights.
* Finally, the decision addresses the application of Article 41 of the Convention (just satisfaction), noting that the applicant failed to submit a claim within the required time-limit, and thus no award was made.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* The decision reinforces the principle that when a State unlawfully interferes with an individual’s property rights, adequate compensation must be provided.
* It highlights the importance of domestic courts providing clear and sufficient reasoning when determining the level of compensation, especially when conflicting valuation reports are presented.
* The Court emphasizes that the absence of prior notice or fair compensation for property demolition undermines any claim of “public interest.”
* The decision serves as a reminder that even when domestic courts acknowledge a violation of property rights, the European Court of Human Rights can still assess whether the redress provided was appropriate and sufficient.
I hope this analysis is helpful.
