HAVET & VANHUFFEL – Association d’avocats
In a judgment of 24 March 2026 (case no. 41618/18 – Mammadova and Mammadov v. Azerbaijan), the European Court of Human Rights ordered the Republic of Azerbaijan to compensate two applicants for the damage suffered as a result of the demolition of their building without identifying a clear legal basis permitting the demolition of the property and without a prior judicial decision.
The case before the Court concerned the unlawful demolition of the applicants’ apartment, a mother and her son, located in the Sabail district of Baku, which had allegedly been in an urgent state of disrepair.
Facts
In February 2016, the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Azerbaijan adopted a decision aimed at accelerating the development of several districts of Baku, providing for the demolition of buildings in poor condition and the construction of new buildings meeting modern standards, while ensuring the rehousing of residents.
In March 2016, the State Main Design Institute Azerdovletlayihe (hereinafter “SMDI”) inspected the applicants’ building and concluded that it was severely deteriorated, dangerous, and that repairs were neither technically nor economically feasible. The institute recommended the immediate evacuation of residents and securing of the building.
On 28 March 2016, the Sabail District Executive Authority (hereinafter “SDEA”) authorized the demolition of the building and entrusted the cooperative F.B. HCC with the construction of a new multi-storey building, as well as the financing of temporary rehousing of residents and the allocation of renovated apartments in the new building.
On the same day, the SDEA and F.B. signed a contract providing for agreements with property owners, coverage of their rehousing and temporary rental expenses, and the allocation of renovated apartments equivalent to the original ones. Residents were informed on 6 May 2016 of the demolition and the construction of a new complex.
On 2 August 2016, the first applicant, together with two other residents of the same building, brought proceedings against the SDEA to challenge the order of 28 March 2016 and to seek financial compensation based on the value of their apartments. They subsequently requested that F.B. be joined to the proceedings, arguing that they were being forced to leave their apartments without guarantees regarding the new building.
On 13 August 2016, F.B. demolished the applicants’ apartment as well as the other apartments in the same building while the applicants were abroad.
On 30 November 2016, the Baku Administrative-Economic Court declared the compensation claim inadmissible due to the lack of a prior request submitted to the SDEA and rejected the request to invalidate the order. This decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court in 2017.
The applicants appealed, arguing that F.B. had demolished the apartments without a judicial decision, in violation of domestic law and the decision of the Cabinet of Ministers of 25 February 2016. The Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on 28 September 2017, considering that the order was justified and lawful, and that the demolition and reconstruction did not violate domestic law.
On 30 January 2018, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal, stating that Article 28 of the Housing Code did not apply because renovation of the building was not technically feasible. It concluded that the applicants had not demonstrated the unlawfulness of the order or a violation of their property rights.
In a second set of proceedings, the applicants sought additional compensation, including 20% of the market value and compensation for damage. The courts rejected these claims, holding that the SDEA order and the Cabinet of Ministers’ decision provided for the allocation of new apartments and coverage of rehousing costs, not financial compensation.
In a third set of proceedings, the applicants sued F.B., alleging the unlawful demolition of their apartments and seeking compensation for material and non-material damage. The courts held that F.B. had not acted unlawfully and that the demolition had been carried out in accordance with the decisions of the Cabinet of Ministers and the SDEA. The applicants refused the new apartments offered and received no payment for rehousing expenses.
The Court’s reasoning
The Court first reiterates the general principles established in its case-law concerning the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and the conditions under which State interference may be justified, as summarized in particular in Akhverdiyev, Gogitidze and Others v. Georgia (no. 36862/05, §§ 96–97, 12 May 2015), and Khalikova v. Azerbaijan (no. 42883/11, §§ 134–136, 22 October 2015).
For the Court, the first and most important requirement of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 is that any interference by a public authority with the peaceful enjoyment of possessions must be lawful. This concept implies, firstly, that the impugned measures must have a basis in domestic law. That law must also be accessible to the persons concerned, precise, and foreseeable.
The Court further specifies that, although it is primarily for the national authorities to interpret and apply domestic law, it must verify whether the manner in which it is interpreted and applied produces effects compatible with the principles of the Convention, as interpreted in the light of its case-law.
It observes that the parties agree that there was an interference with the applicants’ property rights, as a result of the demolition of their apartment, which constitutes a deprivation of possessions within the meaning of the Convention.
The main point of disagreement concerns the lawfulness of that interference. The Court emphasizes that any interference with property rights must have a clear, accessible, and foreseeable legal basis.
In the present case, the apartment was demolished on the basis of an administrative authorization grounded on a government decision and a technical opinion indicating that the building was in poor condition.
However, the applicants argued that, under domestic law, only a judicial decision could formally establish that a building was in a state of disrepair and authorize measures such as demolition.
The Court notes that national legislation does indeed provide for a procedure involving a judge, in particular to establish the condition of the property, set a time limit for repairs, and possibly arrange a sale or other measures.
However, the domestic courts failed to properly address these arguments or to identify a precise legal basis allowing the demolition of the property without a prior judicial decision.
The Court also notes that the provisions relied on by the authorities concerned general urban planning rules rather than a clear procedure for expropriation or demolition of private property.
Consequently, it concludes that the demolition was not based on a sufficient legal basis and therefore constitutes a violation of the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
It finds that the procedure leading to the demolition of the building violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
It considers it unnecessary to examine the other complaints.
Article 41 provides that the Court shall afford just satisfaction if domestic law allows only partial reparation, which is the case here.
The Court
The Court awards compensation to the applicants: €126,000 for pecuniary damage, €3,000 for non-pecuniary damage, as well as partial reimbursement of costs and expenses.
To access the judgment, follow the link : https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-249209%22]}.