50342/15;52547/15

THIRD SECTION CASE OF KAPELKO BELOUSOVA AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN (Applications nos. 50342/15 and 52547/15)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 26 May 2026   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Kapelko Belousova 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 regard to: the applications against the Republic of Azerbaijan lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the applicants listed in the appended table (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated therein, who were represented by Ms S. Aliyeva, a lawyer based in Azerbaijan; the decision to give notice of the applications to the Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”) represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Əsgərov, and the decision to request further observations from the parties pursuant to Rule 54 § 2 (c) of the Rules of Court; the parties’ observations and their additional observations; Having deliberated in private on 28 April 2026, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.  The case concerns the applicants’ complaints about the allegedly unlawful demolition of their properties by the State authorities and the allegedly inadequate compensation awarded by the domestic courts.         BACKGROUND 2.  The facts of the present case are similar in several respects to those in Khalikova v. Azerbaijan (no. 42883/11, 22 October 2015). In the present case, the applicants’ flats and non-residential properties were demolished by the Baku City Executive Authority (“the BCEA”) on the basis of an order issued by the head of the BCEA on 16 February 2011, which stated that the buildings and houses located on certain streets were to be demolished for the purpose of constructing a new garden-park complex (“the Winter Park”) and the residents were to be relocated. The BCEA offered the applicants 1,500 Azerbaijani manats (AZN) per square metre of their properties. That amount was offered not as compensation for expropriation but rather on the basis of a contract of sale to be signed between each applicant and Z.I., an official of the BCEA. On various dates the applicants entered into such contracts and received various amounts (see the appended table).       COURT PROCEEDINGS   Application no. 50342/15 3.  On 7 August 2013 the applicant in application no. 50342/15 brought proceedings against the BCEA in Baku Administrative-Economic Court no. 1. Referring to an expert valuation report dated 5 November 2012, which determined the market value of her flat at AZN 45,000, she asked the court to award her (i) the market value of her flat; (ii) additional compensation amounting to 20% of the market price of her property (“the additional 20% compensation”), in accordance with Article 2.3 of Presidential Decree no. 689 of 26 December 2007; and (iii) compensation for expenses related to relocation to another apartment. 4.  The first-instance court partially granted the claim and, on the basis of the above-mentioned expert report, awarded the applicant 20% of the market value of her flat – AZN 9,000 – and dismissed the remaining claims. The appellate court changed that part of the judgment and awarded the applicant AZN 5,400 (20% of the amount set out in the contract of sale). By a final judgment of 24 December 2014, the Supreme Court additionally awarded the applicant AZN 3,000 in respect of pecuniary damage. 5.  According to the applicant, the judgment was finally enforced on 14 November 2025, when she was paid the additional compensation of AZN 3,000. She provided a bank statement to that effect.    Application no. 52547/15 6.  On an unspecified date the applicants jointly brought proceedings against the BCEA in Sabail District Court, asking the court to invalidate the contracts of sale and to have their properties rebuilt. On 16 September 2013 they amended their initial claim and asked the court to invalidate the contracts and award them compensation in respect of pecuniary damage comprising the unpaid part of the real market value of their properties and the additional 20% compensation, in accordance with Article 2.3 of Presidential Decree no. 689 of 26 December 2007. They separately provided expert valuation reports in respect of their properties. 7.  The first-instance court partially granted the claims and awarded the applicants 20% of the amount set out in the respective contracts of sale and dismissed the remaining claims. By a final judgment of 13 March 2015, the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ judgments. 8.  The judgment of the Supreme Court of 13 March 2015 was enforced and on 14 September 2016 the applicants received the amounts awarded by the domestic courts.  THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT        JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 9.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.       ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION 10.  Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicants complained that the demolition of their properties by the BCEA had amounted to an unlawful and unjustified interference with their property rights, and that the amount of compensation paid for their properties had not been adequate. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. 11.  The general principles concerning Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 have been summarised, inter alia, in Akhverdiyev v. Azerbaijan (no. 76254/11, §§ 79-82, 29 January 2015) and Khalikova (cited above, §§ 134-36). 12.  In Khalikova (cited above) the Court found that the expropriation of the applicant’s property had not been carried out in compliance with “conditions provided for by law”. It concluded, in particular, that (i) the BCEA did not have the authority to expropriate private property; (ii) no lawful expropriation order had been issued by a competent State authority; and (iii) the interference with the applicant’s possessions had thus constituted a de facto deprivation of possessions. The Court also found a contract of sale between the applicant and R.K. to be irrelevant, holding that (i) it had been entered into after the demolition of the applicant’s property, and (ii) it was clear that R.K. had been entrusted with that task by the BCEA and had acted on behalf of the executive authorities (ibid., §§ 137-41). Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case. It thus considers that the de facto expropriation of the applicants’ properties was not carried out in compliance with “conditions provided for by law” (compare Bagvanov and Others v. Azerbaijan [Committee], nos. 77919/11 and 13 others, § 17, 10 November 2022, and Salamova and Others v. Azerbaijan [Committee], nos. 66345/12 and 52066/13, § 17, 4 February 2025). 13.  There has accordingly been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 of THE CONVENTION 14.  The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of the domestic courts’ failure to reason their judgments and the non‑enforcement of the final judgments in their favour. 15.  The Government submitted that the applicants could not claim to be victims of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of their complaints concerning non-enforcement of the domestic courts’ judgments, because the judgments had been enforced. As regards application no. 52547/15, the Government provided a copy of the applicants’ letter of 19 September 2016, addressed to the relevant enforcement authority and informing it, without specifying the date, that the judgment in question had been fully enforced. 16.  As to application no. 50342/15, in November and December 2025 the Government and the applicant confirmed its enforcement. The applicant, however, complained about the delayed enforcement of the judgment, notably that the additional compensation awarded by the Supreme Court in December 2014 has only been paid eleven years later (see paragraph 5 above). 17.  The relevant principles concerning “victim status” have been summarised, inter alia, in Tverdokhlebova v. Ukraine (no. 15830/16, § 34, 16 January 2025).    Application no. 50342/15 18.  The Court observes that the final judgment in favour of the applicant remained unenforced for almost eleven years. The mere fact that the authorities finally carried out the payment of the totality of the debt after a significant delay cannot be viewed as automatically depriving the applicant of her victim status under the Convention. The Court notes that no compensation was awarded to the applicant in respect of the alleged violation of the Convention, namely, the lengthy delay in the enforcement of the judgment of 24 December 2014. Therefore, the Court finds that the measures taken in the applicant’s favour were insufficient to deprive her of the “victim” status in the present case (see Jafarli and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 36079/06, §§ 46-47, 29 July 2010). In such circumstances, the Court dismisses the Government’s objection concerning the applicant’s victim status. 19.  The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. 20.  Having examined all the material submitted to it and having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the present case the authorities did not deploy all necessary efforts to enforce fully and in due time the final judgment of the Supreme Court in the applicant’s favour and concludes that the complaint discloses a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (ibid., §§ 53-54, and Akhundov v. Azerbaijan, no. 39941/07, §§ 35-36, 3 February 2011).    Application no. 52547/15 21.  The Court does not find it necessary to examine the Government’s objection concerning the applicants’ victim status in application no. 52547/15, since the complaint is in any event inadmissible, for the following reasons. 22.  While the applicants submitted that they had received the amount due under the final judgment of 13 March 2015, they did not mention the date on which that payment had been made. Nor did they appear to complain of delayed enforcement of the judgment (compare Huseynov and Others v. Azerbaijan [Committee], nos. 53173/13 and 3 others, § 24, 15 July 2025). This complaint is therefore manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.    OTHER COMPLAINTS 23.  As to the applicants’ complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning a breach of their right to a reasoned judgment (see paragraph 14 above), having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and its findings above, the Court considers that it has dealt with the main legal questions raised by the case and that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaint (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014; and compare Salamova and Others, cited above, § 22). APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 24.  The applicants claimed various amounts in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage (see the appended table). The applicants’ claims for compensation in respect of pecuniary damage also contained claims for an additional 20% compensation, compensation for hardship under Article 66 of the Law on the expropriation of land for State needs and compensation related to relocation expenses. They also asked for adjustments to be considered to account for inflation. They relied on expert valuation reports provided before the domestic courts (see paragraphs 3 and 6 above). 25.  The Government asked the Court to reject the applicants’ claims in respect of pecuniary damage, noting that the judgments of the domestic courts had been enforced and left it to the Court to determine the amount of compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 26.  The Court observes that the applicants never claimed compensation for hardship in their complaints before the domestic courts. Nor did they claim the additional 20% compensation in their initial applications to the Court. It therefore rejects these parts of the claims (compare Akhverdiyev v. Azerbaijan (just satisfaction), no. 76254/11, § 31, 21 March 2019). 27.  The Court further observes that the applicants did not provide any evidence in support of their claims concerning relocation expenses. The Court therefore rejects these parts of the claims as well. 28.  The Court considers that the assessment of pecuniary damage in the present case should be based on the principles adopted in Guiso-Gallisay v. Italy ((just satisfaction) [GC], no. 58858/00, 22 December 2009) and reiterated in Akhverdiyev ((just satisfaction), cited above, § 33). 29.  As regards the market value of the properties, the Court notes that although the applicants submitted relevant expert valuation reports, the domestic courts disregarded those reports without any explanation and referred solely to the contracts of sale, which established a single price for all the properties. The Government did not submit any expert reports. 30.  Taking into account all the material in its possession, and also the amounts already received by the applicants, the Court awards the amounts indicated in the appended table to the applicants in respect of pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them. 31.  Ruling on an equitable basis, as required by Article 41 of the Convention, the Court awards the applicant in application no. 50342/15 the sum of 4,700 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage for the violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (delayed enforcement of a final judgment) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount. 32.  As to the applicants in application no. 52547/15, ruling on an equitable basis, the Court also awards each applicant 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. 33.  The applicants did not submit a claim in respect of costs and expenses. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award them any sum on that account. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Declares admissible the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention; Declares the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (delayed enforcement of a final judgment) in application no. 50342/15 admissible and in application no. 52547/15 (non-enforcement of a final judgment) inadmissible; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (delayed enforcement of a final judgment) in application no. 50342/15; Holds that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaint; Holds  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;   that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above-mentioned 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 26 May 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.    Olga Chernishova Canòlic Mingorance Cairat  Deputy Registrar President   APPENDIX List of cases: No. Application no. Lodged on   Applicant’s name Year of birth Place of residence Nationality Type and size of property (according to the ownership documents) Amount paid under the contract of sale (AZN) Compensation awarded by the domestic courts (AZN) Updated just satisfaction claims (EUR) Amounts awarded by the Court (EUR) 1. 50342/15 23/09/2015   Irina KAPELKO BELOUSOVA BORISOVNA Baku Azerbaijani A flat of 18 sq. m 27,000 8,400 17,784 in respect of pecuniary damage   48,725 in respect of non-pecuniary damage 2,200 in respect of pecuniary damage     4,700 in respect of non-pecuniary damage 2. 52547/15 14/10/2015   Rahila Rahman gizi SULTANOVA Baku Azerbaijani A flat of 151.1 sq. m 226,650 45,330 154,957 in respect of pecuniary damage   24,362 in respect of non-pecuniary damage 53,450 in respect of pecuniary damage   3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage Tofig Shukur oglu GURBANOV Baku Azerbaijani ½ of a private house of 92.1 sq. m 86,100 17,220 61,053 in respect of pecuniary damage   24,362 in respect of non-pecuniary damage 3,700 in respect of pecuniary damage     3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage Huseyn Yahya oglu HUSEYNOV Baku Azerbaijani Non-residential property of 30.3 sq. m 45,450 9,090 32,870 in respect of pecuniary damage   61,053 in respect of non-pecuniary damage 4,600 in respect of pecuniary damage     3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage