Background
The five applicants owned flats or parts of homes in Baku that were demolished by the Yasamal District Executive Authority in 2016. The authority then pursued, or defended, domestic proceedings seeking expropriation and eviction in return for compensation calculated using a private valuation. Two applicants signed sale-and-purchase contracts with the authority after demolition and received compensation.
The domestic courts upheld the authority’s actions and found the compensation adequate. They also rejected claims for statutory additional compensation and, in some instances, hardship compensation. Before the Strasbourg Court, the applicants alleged that the expropriations were unlawful and unjustified under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1; one applicant also raised Article 8 and another Article 6 complaints.
The Court’s Holding
The Court unanimously held that the expropriations violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Applying its earlier judgment in Bagirova and Others v. Azerbaijan, it found that the relevant executive order was not a lawful basis for expropriation because the issuing authority lacked power to expropriate private property. The Cabinet of Ministers’ 2015 decision concerned only preparatory steps and did not itself authorize expropriation.
The Court also found no basis to depart from its conclusion that the private evaluator had been engaged at the district authority’s request without a Cabinet decision. It therefore held that the interference with the applicants’ possessions was not carried out in accordance with conditions provided by law. It declined to examine the remaining Article 6 and Article 8 complaints, having resolved the case’s main legal question.
Key Takeaways
- An executive authority cannot lawfully expropriate private property without statutory power and a proper authorizing decision.
- A governmental decision limited to preparatory measures does not by itself authorize expropriation.
- The Court awarded pecuniary damages to four applicants, EUR 3,000 each for non-pecuniary damage, and specified costs and translation awards.
Why It Matters
The judgment reinforces the Court’s prior finding that the Azerbaijani authorities’ demolition-and-compensation process in these cases lacked a lawful foundation. Domestic approval of the demolition and compensation arrangements did not cure that defect.
It also shows that compensation payments, including payments made under post-demolition sale contracts, do not prevent the Court from finding an unlawful deprivation of property where the underlying expropriation procedure was not lawful.