Background
Firuz Verdiyev and Safayat Verdiyeva owned a non-residential property (271.9 sq. m) and underlying plot of land in Ganja, Azerbaijan. In August 2013, the Kapaz District Executive Authority unlawfully demolished the property without authorization. The applicants sought compensation totaling 770,000 Azerbaijani manats (approximately €747,000), relying on a professional valuation report from company A.
The domestic courts proceeded through multiple appeals spanning 2014–2015. The Ganja Court of Appeal eventually acknowledged the unlawful demolition but awarded only 50,000 AZN (approximately €43,000) based on a one-page State Registry expert opinion that lacked methodological explanation. The Supreme Court upheld this award and added 2,000 AZN for non-pecuniary damage. The final judgment was not enforced until 29 June 2017, more than eighteen months after it was issued on 9 December 2015.
The Court’s Holding
The Court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) because the compensation awarded was inadequate and not reasonably related to the property’s actual value. The domestic courts based their award entirely on a one-page expert opinion from the State Registry without explaining their methodology or adequately addressing the applicants’ professional valuation. The Court concluded that using the valuation from company V (which estimated the property at 121,600 AZN and land at 239,900 AZN) provided a more reliable basis for assessment.
The Court further found a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to enforcement within reasonable time) because the Supreme Court’s final judgment was not enforced for over eighteen months. This delay breached the applicants’ right to execution of a judgment within a reasonable timeframe. The Court did not examine the applicants’ remaining complaints regarding the reasoned judgment requirement, finding the main legal issues already resolved.
Key Takeaways
- Domestic courts must provide adequate reasoning when rejecting private valuation reports and selecting state-provided valuations as the basis for compensation awards.
- Compensation for unlawful property deprivation must bear a reasonable relationship to the actual value of the property taken; token awards based on inadequately explained expert opinion violate property rights.
- Failure to enforce a final judgment for over eighteen months constitutes a violation of the right to enforcement within reasonable time under Article 6 § 1.
- Courts must engage substantively with evidence and competing valuations rather than dismissing private expert reports without detailed analysis.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that states cannot satisfy Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 obligations by formally acknowledging unlawful property deprivation while awarding nominal compensation based on unexplained or inadequate expert assessment. The judgment requires domestic courts to provide reasoned justification for valuation choices and to ensure the compensation awarded bears a rational relationship to the property’s true value—a meaningful protection for property owners facing state action.
The finding of violation for delayed enforcement highlights that judgment execution is not a mere formality; it is a substantive component of the right to a fair trial. For states with systemic enforcement delays, this decision signals that indefinite postponement of compensation will attract liability under Article 6 § 1. The Court awarded €71,750 in pecuniary damages and €3,700 for non-pecuniary harm, requiring payment within three months plus interest.