38244/12;70719/12;57130/13;17453/14;37721/14;38220/14;43224/14

THIRD SECTION CASE OF AZIMOV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN (Applications nos. 38244/12 and 6 others – see appended list) JUDGMENT (Just satisfaction) STRASBOURG 2 June 2026 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Azimov and Others v. Azerbaijan, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Canòlic Mingorance Cairat, President, Lətif Hüseynov, Vasilka Sancin, judges, and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 12 May 2026, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.The applications mainly concerned the applicants’ complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about an allegedly unlawful expropriation of their properties by the State authorities. 2.In a judgment delivered on 24 October 2024 (“the principal judgment”), the Court held that the expropriation of the applicants’ properties had not been carried out in compliance with “conditions provided for by law” and that there had accordingly been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Azimov and Others v. Azerbaijan [Committee], nos.38244/12 and 6 others, §§ 16-17, and point 4 of the operative provisions, 24 October 2024). It also held that there had been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention in respect of two applications (nos. 17453/14 and 38220/14) as the domestic courts’ judgments delivered in those cases remained partly unenforced, and that it was not necessary to examine the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints (ibid., §§ 20 and 23, and points 5-6 of the operative provisions). 3.Under Article 41 of the Convention, the applicants sought just satisfaction. 4.Since the question of the application of Article 41 of the Convention was not ready for decision, the Court reserved it and invited the Government and the applicants to submit, within three months, their written observations on that issue and, in particular, to notify the Court of any agreement they might reach (ibid., § 25, and point 8 of the operative provisions). The Court also requested the parties to provide a duly substantiated valuation of the applicants’ properties in accordance with the principles enumerated in Akhverdiyev v. Azerbaijan ((just satisfaction), no. 76254/11, §§ 33-37, 21March 2019), in case they failed to settle the matter. 5.The applicants and the Government each filed observations, which were transmitted to the other party for comments. THE LAW 6.Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” PECUNIARY DAMAGE The parties’ submissions 7.The applicants claimed various amounts of compensation in respect of their properties. Some of the applicants also claimed compensation for lost or damaged possessions, relocation expenses and/or lost profit. 8.In their observations following the delivery of the principal judgment, the applicants maintained their initial claims. The applicants did not present any new supporting documents. They relied, instead, on expert opinions indicating the market value of their properties or similar properties, which had been presented before the domestic courts and/or submitted together with their applications or initial just satisfaction claims before the Court. 9.The Government provided an expert valuation in respect of all the properties concerned, which estimated their market value together with adjustments. The Government submitted that since the market value of the properties provided by the expert was excessive in respect of applications nos.38244/12, 17453/14 and 38220/14, they had adjusted the amounts and provided their own proposals in respect of those applications. 10.In response to the Government’s submissions, the applicants in applications nos. 38244/12, 17453/14, 37721/14, 38220/14 and 43224/14 agreed with the evaluations submitted by the Government. The remaining applicants submitted that the valuation presented by the Government was “absurd” and “unfair”. The applicant in application no. 70719/12 reiterated the amounts that he had initially claimed and the applicant in application no.57130/13 partly amended his initial claims (see the appended table). The Court’s assessment 11.The Court firstly refers to its findings in the principal judgment concerning the applicants’ possessions. In particular, it held that the properties, as indicated in the ownership documents (see the appended table), constituted the applicants’ “possessions”. As to the claims of some of the applicants concerning the additional surface area, including their share in the building’s basement and the plot of land attached to the building (application no. 38244/12), the plot of land underlying the house (application no.70719/12), and the non-residential property (application no. 43224/14), the Court declared those parts of the complaints inadmissible (see §§ 9-12 of the principal judgment). Applications nos. 38244/12, 17453/14, 37721/14, 38220/14 and 43224/14 12.As to the compensation for the properties in question, the Court observes that following the delivery of the principal judgment, the applicants agreed with the Government valuations (see paragraph 10 above). 13.In such cases and by virtue of the principle of non ultra petita, the Court finds it appropriate to award the applicants the amounts indicated in the appended table, plus any tax that may be chargeable on those amounts (compare Bagirova and Others v. Azerbaijan (just satisfaction), nos.37706/17 and 5 others, § 25, 24 June 2024). Applications nos. 70719/12 and 57130/13 14.The Court considers that the assessment of pecuniary damage in these cases should be based on the principles adopted inGuiso-Gallisay v. Italy ((just satisfaction) [GC], no. 58858/00, § 105, 22 December 2009) and reiterated in Akhverdiyev v. Azerbaijan ((just satisfaction), no. 76254/11, §§33-37, 21 March 2019). 15.As mentioned above, the applicants failed to provide any valuation reports in support of their claims when submitting their observations following the delivery of the principal judgment (see paragraph 8 above). 16.In this connection, the Court reiterates that it is for the applicants to show that pecuniary damage has resulted from the violation or violations alleged. The applicants should submit relevant documents to prove, as far as possible, not only the existence but also the amount or value of the damage (see, for example,Vasilevski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 22653/08, § 66, 28 April 2016). 17.Moreover, the Court has previously stressed that when it adjourns the question of just satisfaction as it did in this case, it does so in order to provide the parties with an opportunity to reach a friendly settlement or present written observations; the latter to ensure that the application of Article 41 is ready for decision (seeMaharramov v. Azerbaijan(just satisfaction), no.5046/07, § 19, 9 May 2019). 18.The Court further observes that while the expert reports submitted by the applicants together with their applications or initial just satisfaction claims before the Court provided information about the market value of the properties around the time that the applicants were deprived of them, no information or supporting documents were submitted by the applicants concerning necessary adjustments required by the principles enumerated in Akhverdiyev (cited above, § 33), despite the Court’s explicit request in that regard (see paragraph 4 above; see also Bagvanov and Others v. Azerbaijan (just satisfaction) [Committee], nos. 77919/11 and 13 others, § 17, 14 January 2025). Together with his initial just satisfaction claims, the applicant in application no. 70719/12 provided a letter from a private company estimating that the property’s value had increased by 30% between 2010 and May 2014. However, this letter lacked any explanation of the methodology used and merely cited the sources relied on. 19.In view of the above-mentioned principles (see paragraphs 16 and 17 above) and the circumstances of the case, the Court finds it more appropriate to proceed on the basis of the valuation submitted by the Government. It awards the amounts indicated in the appended table to the applicants, plus any tax that may be chargeable on those amounts. NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGE 20.All the applicants, except for the second applicant in application no.38244/12, claimed various amounts in respect of non-pecuniary damage (see the appended table). 21.The Government argued that the amounts claimed were excessive. They submitted that the sum of 3,000 euros (EUR) per application would constitute in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants. 22.In response to the Government’s submissions, the applicants in applications nos. 37721/14 and 43224/14 stated that they agreed with the amount indicated by the Government. Applications nos. 38244/12, 70719/12, 57130/13, 37721/14 and 43224/14 23.Ruling on an equitable basis, as required by Article 41 of the Convention, the Court awards the first applicant in application no. 38244/12 and the applicants in the remaining applications the sum of EUR 3,000 under this head, for the violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount. Applications nos. 17453/14 and 38220/14 24.Ruling on an equitable basis, as required by Article 41 of the Convention, the Court awards the applicant the sum of EUR 4,700 per application under this head for the violation of Article 6 of the Convention (non-enforcement of final judgments) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 thereto, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount. 25.The Court further notes that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to enforce relevant domestic judgments which remain enforceable. COSTS AND EXPENSES 26.All the applicants, except for the applicants in applications nos.37721/14 and 43224/14, claimed various amounts for costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court (see the appended table). 27.The Government submitted that the applicants had failed to submit any documentary evidence in respect of their claims for costs and expenses. 28.According to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these were actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum (see, for example,Vegotex International S.A. v. Belgium [GC], no. 49812/09, § 167, 3 November 2022, and Malik Babayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 30500/11, §97, 1 June 2017, with further references). In the present case, regard being had to the documents in its possession, the Court awards the applicants in applications nos. 70719/12, 57130/13, 17453/14 and 38220/14 the sums indicated in the appended table to cover costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, and dismisses the rest of their claims under this head on account of a lack of supporting documents. 29.As to the claim of the applicant in application no. 38244/12 in respect of legal services, the Court dismisses it on account of a lack of supporting documents. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Holds that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable on those amounts in respect of pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage and any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants on those amounts for costs and expenses; that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on those amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points; Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 2 June 2026, pursuant to Rule77§§2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Olga ChernishovaCanòlic Mingorance Cairat Deputy RegistrarPresident APPENDIX List of cases: No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant’s name Year of birth Place of residence Representative’s name and location Type and size of property (according to the ownership documents) Compensation awarded/paid at the domestic level Updated just satisfaction claims Amounts awarded by the Court 38244/12 05/06/2012 Hacibaba Sadig oglu AZIMOV Baku Jeyhun Hacibaba oglu AZIMOV Baku Sadig BAGIROV Absheron Flat of 144.1 sq. m AZN216,165 for pecuniary damage awarded by the courts and paid under the contract; AZN2,600 paid for loss of profit (according to the applicants) AZN312,000 for pecuniary damage, AZN150,000 for non-pecuniary damage (the first applicant only), AZN3,000 for legal services EUR176,200 jointly to the applicants in respect of pecuniary damage; EUR3,000 to the first applicant only in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 70719/12 16/10/2012 Malik Bakhish oglu ALIYEV Baku Shafa JAMALZADE Baku Half of a house – 28.5sq. m AZN42,750 paid under the contract; AZN8,550 (the additional 20% compensation) awarded by the courts AZN109,350 for the demolished property, AZN42,000 for lost profit, AZN47,000 for relocation expenses, AZN30,000 for non-pecuniary damage, AZN5,000 for legal services and AZN2,000 for translation, postal and other expenses EUR21,000 in respect of pecuniary damage; EUR3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage; EUR65 for costs and expenses. 57130/13 16/08/2013 Famil Aslan oglu GASIMOV Shirvan Shafa JAMALZADE Baku Flat of 68sq.m AZN102,000 paid under the contract; AZN20,400 (20%) awarded by the courts AZN227,258 for the demolished property, AZN30,000 for lost profit, AZN34,000 for relocation expenses, AZN30,000 for non-pecuniary damage, AZN5,000 for legal services and AZN2,000 for translation, postal and other expenses EUR42,500 in respect of pecuniary damage; EUR3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage; EUR90 for costs and expenses. 17453/14 22/02/2014 Malik Mukhtar oglu MUSAYEV Baku Nemat HEYDAROV Baku Non-residential property of 151.4 sq. m AZN227,100 awarded by the courts and paid under the contract; AZN45,420 (20%) awarded by the courts but not paid AZN450,000 for pecuniary damage, EUR10,495.93 for non-pecuniary damage, EUR3,673.57 for legal services and EUR262.40 for other expenses EUR255,000 in respect of pecuniary damage; EUR4,700 in respect of non-pecuniary damage; EUR262.40 for costs and expenses. 37721/14 01/05/2014 Elshad Tofig oglu MALIKZADE Baku Sevinj ALIYEVA Baku Flat of 45.3sq. m AZN67,950 paid under the contract; AZN13,590 (20%) awarded by the courts; AZN6,795 (10%) awarded by the court AZN58,754 for pecuniary damage, EUR3,000 for non-pecuniary damage EUR33,200 in respect of pecuniary damage; EUR3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 38220/14 13/05/2014 Malik Mukhtar oglu MUSAYEV Baku Sadig BAGIROV Baku Non-residential property of 342.5 sq. m AZN513,750 awarded by the courts and paid under the contract; AZN102,750 (20%) awarded by the courts but not paid AZN810,000 for pecuniary damage, EUR10,495.93 for non-pecuniary damage, EUR3,673.57 for legal services and EUR262.40 for other expenses EUR457,650 in respect of pecuniary damage; EUR4,700 in respect of non-pecuniary damage; EUR262.40 for costs and expenses. 43224/14 02/06/2014 Elnur Ibrahim oglu HUSEYNOV Baku Sevinj ALIYEVA Baku Two flats of 53.83 sq. m and 43.1sq.m AZN145,395 awarded by the courts; however AZN184,335 paid under the contract; AZN36,867 (20%) awarded by the courts AZN60,619 for pecuniary damage, EUR3,000 for non-pecuniary damage EUR34,250 in respect of pecuniary damage; EUR3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.