CASE OF MAMMADOVA AND MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN
Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECHR) decision in the case of Mammadova and Mammadov v. Azerbaijan:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The ECHR found Azerbaijan in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case concerned the demolition of the applicants’ apartment, which the authorities claimed was in a state of urgent disrepair. The Court ruled that the demolition lacked a proper legal basis under Azerbaijani law, as the domestic courts failed to identify any specific legal provision authorizing the demolition of privately owned property under such circumstances. The Court emphasized that any interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions must be lawful and based on clear, accessible, and foreseeable legal provisions. As a result, the applicants were awarded compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, as well as costs and expenses.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Introduction:** Sets out the subject matter of the application – the demolition of the applicants’ apartment.
* **Facts:** Details the background, including the applicants’ ownership of the apartment, the decision by the Cabinet of Ministers regarding socio-economic development in Baku, and the order by the Sabail District Executive Authority (SDEA) for the demolition. It outlines three sets of domestic proceedings initiated by the applicants to challenge the demolition and seek compensation.
* **Relevant Legal Framework:** Cites relevant articles from the Azerbaijani Constitution, laws on expropriation and compensation, the Civil Code, the Housing Code, the Urban Planning and Construction Code, and a Presidential Decree.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1:** Focuses on the applicants’ complaint that they were unlawfully deprived of their apartment without compensation.
* **Admissibility:** Declares the complaint admissible, noting that the apartment constituted the applicants’ “possession.”
* **Merits:** Examines whether there was an interference with the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions and whether that interference was lawful. The Court finds that the demolition lacked a proper legal basis.
* **Other Alleged Violations of the Convention:** Addresses the applicants’ complaints under Articles 6, 8, and 13 of the Convention but concludes that there is no need to examine these complaints separately.
* **Application of Article 41 of the Convention:** Deals with the issue of just satisfaction, including pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses. The Court awards the applicants specific amounts in compensation.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Lawfulness of Interference:** The decision underscores the importance of a clear and accessible legal basis for any interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions. States must ensure that domestic laws provide a concrete procedure for compulsory alienation or demolition of privately owned property.
* **Role of Domestic Courts:** The ECHR emphasized that domestic courts must refer to relevant legal provisions that serve as a legal basis for the interference in question.
* **Compensation:** The decision highlights the right to compensation when property is taken or destroyed without a lawful basis. The compensation must be adequate and reflect the market value of the property.
Let me know if you need more details on any specific aspect of the judgment.
CASE OF BADEA v. ROMANIA
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Badea v. Romania, concerning proceedings for the return of the applicant’s child to Switzerland, her state of habitual residence. The Romanian courts had refused to order the return of the child, relying on exceptions under the Hague Convention, citing the child’s psychological assessment, her allegations of the father’s abusive behavior, and her expressed wish to remain in Romania. The ECtHR found that the domestic courts’ reasoning was insufficient, as they did not adequately examine the substance of the evidence or the child’s objections, thus failing to ensure a fair decision-making process that defended the child’s best interests. The Court also noted that the length of the proceedings was incompatible with the requirement for expediency in return cases. Consequently, the ECtHR held that Romania had violated Article 8 of the Convention, which guarantees the right to respect for family life.
The judgment begins by outlining the factual and procedural background of the case, detailing the applicant’s efforts to have his child returned to Switzerland under the Hague Convention. It then presents the arguments made by both parties, followed by the Court’s assessment, which focuses on the alleged violation of Article 8 of the Convention. The Court examines the reasoning of the Romanian courts, particularly the County Court, and finds it lacking in several respects. The judgment emphasizes the need for domestic courts to thoroughly examine the evidence and allegations presented in Hague Convention cases, especially those involving potential abuse or harm to the child. The Court also addresses the length of the proceedings, finding it excessive. Finally, the judgment concludes with the Court’s decision, declaring the application admissible, holding that there has been a violation of Article 8, and awarding the applicant compensation for non-pecuniary damage and costs. There are no significant changes compared to previous versions, as this is the final judgment.
The most important provisions of this decision are those concerning the procedural requirements in Hague Convention cases, particularly regarding the examination of evidence and allegations, and the need for detailed reasoning by domestic courts. The ECtHR’s emphasis on the importance of a fair decision-making process that defends the child’s best interests is also crucial. Additionally, the judgment highlights the requirement for expediency in return proceedings and underscores that a child’s opinion, while important, must be thoroughly examined and its substance engaged with by the courts.
CASE OF REFORMED DIOCESE OF TRANSYLVANIA v. ROMANIA
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered a judgment in the case of the Reformed Diocese of Transylvania v. Romania, concerning the applicant’s inability to recover possession of property in Cluj-Napoca that was nationalized during the communist regime and subsequently sold to third parties. The Court found that Romania had violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which protects the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions. The ECtHR concluded that the applicant had been deprived of its possessions without adequate compensation, imposing a disproportionate burden on them. The Court ordered Romania to pay the applicant specific amounts in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, emphasizing that any compensation already received by the applicant through domestic proceedings should be deducted to prevent unjust enrichment. The Court declared parts of the application inadmissible, specifically concerning property already returned to the applicant and one apartment sold before 1989.
The decision begins by outlining the subject matter of the case, focusing on the applicant’s struggle to regain possession of its property or receive compensation. It references similar cases against Romania to provide context. The judgment then details the factual and legal circumstances, including the nationalization of the property under the communist regime and the applicant’s subsequent restitution claims through administrative and judicial channels. The Court assesses the admissibility of the application, addressing the government’s arguments regarding incompatibility and non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. After declaring parts of the application admissible, the Court examines the merits of the case, finding a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Finally, the judgment addresses the application of Article 41 of the Convention, concerning just satisfaction, and specifies the amounts to be paid by Romania to the applicant for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
The main provision of this decision is the finding that Romania violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 due to the applicant’s inability to recover its property or receive adequate compensation for its deprivation. The Court’s emphasis on calculating pecuniary damage based on the methodology established in previous case law (Văleanu and Others) and its order to deduct any compensation already received to prevent unjust enrichment are also important. This decision reinforces the principle that states must provide effective remedies for property deprivations, including the payment of fair compensation.
