Background
The six applications concerned the State’s expropriation of properties in Baku. In its principal judgment of 17 October 2024, the Court found that the expropriations had not complied with conditions provided by law and therefore violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It reserved the question of just satisfaction.
The parties did not settle. The representative had lost contact with the applicants in three applications. In another, Solmaz Gaffarova had died and her daughter, Kubra Gaffarova, sought to continue the case. The remaining applicants sought property-value compensation, statutory additions, relocation costs, and non-pecuniary damages.
The Court’s Holding
The Court accepted that Kubra Gaffarova had a legitimate interest in pursuing application no. 10266/15 for her deceased mother. It struck out the remaining parts of applications nos. 25690/14, 38009/15, and 35068/16 because the applicants could be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue them, and respect for human rights did not require continued examination.
For applications nos. 68452/14, 10266/15, and 37345/15, the Court awarded pecuniary damages of EUR 25,000, EUR 23,000, and EUR 5,500 respectively. It also awarded EUR 3,000 to each applicant for non-pecuniary damage. Applying its expropriation-compensation principles, the Court relied on the Government’s valuations because the applicants did not provide updated evidence supporting necessary adjustments. It rejected the remaining claims, including unsubstantiated claims for statutory additions and relocation costs.
Key Takeaways
- A just-satisfaction judgment may award compensation after a prior finding that an expropriation was unlawful.
- Applicants must substantiate both the existence and amount of pecuniary loss, particularly when the Court requests updated valuations.
- Loss of contact with applicants can justify striking out the remaining proceedings under Article 37 § 1(a).
Why It Matters
The judgment illustrates the evidentiary burden at the Article 41 stage: earlier valuation material may be insufficient where the Court has expressly requested evidence addressing adjustments required for compensation.
It also confirms that successors may continue proceedings where they demonstrate a legitimate interest, while unresolved claims may be struck out when applicants no longer pursue them.