Background
Emma Shirinova owned a 61-square-metre flat in Baku, while her sister, Dilshad Shirinova, lived there. In 2011, Azerbaijani authorities began a redevelopment process involving demolition of the building. The applicants rejected offers of replacement flats and sought financial compensation instead.
During administrative proceedings, a domestic court issued an injunction barring demolition or other work that could damage the flat. The authorities nevertheless demolished the building in August 2011. Although the applicants initially obtained an award based on a valuation of the flat, that judgment was later quashed on procedural grounds. Their subsequent civil claim was dismissed; the domestic courts treated roughly AZN 80,000 already transferred to the first applicant as adequate compensation.
The Court’s Holding
The Court unanimously held that Azerbaijan violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of the first applicant, the owner. The demolition was a deprivation of possessions that was not lawful: Article 28 of the Housing Code required a court decision confirming that the building was in urgent disrepair and could not be renovated, but no such decision had been obtained. The authorities also demolished the flat despite the outstanding injunction.
The Court further found a violation of Article 8 in respect of the second applicant, for whom the flat was a home. Because the demolition had not been carried out in accordance with the applicable domestic procedure, the interference with her home was not “in accordance with the law.” The first applicant’s Article 8 complaint was inadmissible because she lived in Germany and had not shown sufficient continuing links to the flat; the second applicant’s property complaint was inadmissible because she had not established a property right in it. The Court did not examine the remaining Article 6 and Article 13 complaints.
Key Takeaways
- Azerbaijan unlawfully deprived the owner of her flat by demolishing it without following the statutory procedure.
- Demolishing a resident’s home despite a court injunction violated Article 8 where the action lacked a lawful basis.
- The Court awarded each applicant EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 jointly for costs, but rejected pecuniary-damage claims.
Why It Matters
The judgment underscores that redevelopment or safety-based demolition cannot bypass domestic legal safeguards. Where national law requires a judicial finding before a residential building may be demolished, authorities must obtain it—even if replacement accommodation or compensation has been offered.
It also distinguishes ownership-based property protection from home protection: the owner succeeded under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, while the resident sister succeeded under Article 8.