Background
This judgment determined just satisfaction under Article 41 following the Court’s principal judgment of 4 February 2025. In that earlier decision, the Court found that the expropriation of the applicants’ properties had not complied with “conditions provided for by law,” violating Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It also found that Azerbaijan had failed to comply with Article 34 in application no. 52066/13 and considered it unnecessary to examine the remaining complaints in either application.
Because the Article 41 question was not ready for decision, the Court reserved it and invited observations, including notification of any settlement and, failing agreement, substantiated property valuations. No agreement was reached. The applicants sought market-value compensation, additional compensation of 20% under Presidential Decree no. 689 and, for application no. 66345/12, a further 10% “for hardship.” They also invoked currency devaluation; that applicant additionally invoked inflation and interest. The Government supplied expert valuations and argued that EUR 3,000 per application would suffice for non-pecuniary damage.
Under paragraph 12, all applicants except the fourth applicant in application no. 52066/13 agreed with the Government valuations. The fourth applicant said she would accept compensation calculated on her claimed total surface area of 242 sq. m. The representative also reported that the fifth applicant in that application had been declared legally incapable and that his son had been appointed guardian; the appendix identifies Pasha Zaman oglu Mahmudlu as legal guardian since October 2025. The Government made no comments on that submission.
The Court’s Holding
The Court rejected the fourth applicant’s claim concerning her property’s market value. She had submitted no valuation report domestically or to the Court. The Government’s report valued the property at AZN 299,565, while it was undisputed that she had received AZN 363,000, approximately EUR 369,400. Her new assertion of 242 sq. m did not displace the principal judgment’s finding that a flat of 158.5 sq. m constituted her possession. Separately, the Court dismissed her claim for the additional 20% compensation because she had never raised the decree’s applicability before the domestic courts or in her application to the Court.
For the remaining applicants in application no. 52066/13, the Court relied on their agreement with the Government valuations and awarded the appendix amounts, plus applicable tax. Those pecuniary awards were: EUR 60,000 for Tamila Sukhulanovna Mammadova; EUR 22,500 for Nadezhda Yevgenyevna Sandler; EUR 40,800 for Zohra Haji gizi Hajiyeva; EUR 127,000 for Zaman Pasha oglu Mahmudov; EUR 29,900 for Agali Arif oglu Khudayev; EUR 53,700 for Alla Humbat gizi Fataliyeva; EUR 98,550 for Ilgar Tofig oglu Novruzov; EUR 104,500 for Bashkhanim Shamil gizi Abbasova; EUR 26,400 for Shabeyim Alabbas gizi Huseynova; EUR 15,400 for Ikmat Teymur oglu Mirzayev; EUR 38,600 for Fira Abramovna Ilkanayeva; and EUR 44,300 for Gunel Marhamat gizi Isimkhanova.
The appendix separately records EUR 47,000 in pecuniary damage for the applicant in application no. 66345/12. Its preceding column lists AZN 93,128 as the Government valuation amount accepted by the applicants; that manat figure is not the Court’s award. The Court awarded every applicant, including the fourth applicant in application no. 52066/13, EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax chargeable. It also awarded the applicants in application no. 52066/13 jointly EUR 1,500 for legal services, plus any tax chargeable to them, having regard to the documents and their representative’s work.
Key Takeaways
- The appendix distinguishes Government valuation proposals from the Court’s euro-denominated awards; AZN 93,128 was not the amount awarded in application no. 66345/12.
- The fourth applicant received no pecuniary award: both her market-value claim and her distinct additional-20% claim were rejected on the case-specific grounds stated above.
- The valuation-agreement reasoning in paragraphs 16–17 concerned the remaining applicants in application no. 52066/13, not a universal basis for every award.
Why It Matters
The decision shows the Court resolving just satisfaction applicant by applicant, using the principal judgment’s established findings about possessions and addressing late surface-area and decree-based claims according to the record. It also distinguishes compensation for damage from a narrowly described joint award for legal services.
Unanimously, the Court ordered payment of the appendix amounts within three months, conversion into the respondent State’s currency at the settlement-date rate, and payment of applicable tax. After that period, simple interest runs at the European Central Bank’s marginal lending rate plus three percentage points until settlement. The remainder of the just-satisfaction claims was dismissed.