Judgement 38228/12

Applicant name Mammadova
Applicant type Natural person
Number of applicants 1
Country Azerbaijan
Application no. 38228/12
Date 29/06/2023
Judges Krzysztof Wojtyczek, President,
 Lətif Hüseynov,
 Erik Wennerström
Institution Court
Type Judgment
Outcome Art. 8 Violation
Reason Not necessary (economic well-being)
Type of privacy Procedural privacy; locational privacy; informational privacy
Keywords Eviction; no adequate review by domestic courts
Facts of the caseAfter the applicant and her family had become homeless in 1996, they were allowed by the Scientific Research Silkmaking Institute of Azerbaijan to move into a part of a non‑residential building. In 2005, the local authorities stated they had no problem with that. In 2011, however, the Institute issued a claim against the applicant for illegal occupation of the building; a court subsequently ordered the applicant’s eviction. Her appeal before the court of appeal and supreme court was unsuccessful. Applicant’s lawyer was later arrested on charges of tax evasion and all the case files relating to applications of the applicant before the ECtHR were confiscated.
AnalysisThe ECtHR makes the following clear:
1. The applicant relies on Article 1 Protocol 1, the right to property, but instead, the ECtHR deals with the matter under Article 8 ECHR, therewith refocussing on an interference with the applicant’s right to home. ‘Home’, for the purposes of the Convention, the ECtHR reiterates, is dependent on the factual role a building or premises fulfilled, rather than on its legal status. Because the applicant had been living there for over a decade, the building was her home.
2. The interference was provided by law and served the interest of the economic well-being of the country. Assessing the necessity and the proportionality of the interference, the ECtHR underlines that the domestic courts only focussed on the question of whether the eviction had been legal, while not taking into account the effects of the eviction on applicant and her family. There was no hurry to evict the applicant, as renovation of the building started only years after her eviction. Thus, there would have been plenty time for adequate review as to the proportionality of the eviction. Because applicant was unable to obtain an adequate review of the proportionality of the interference in the light of her personal circumstances, the Court finds a violation of Article 8 ECHR.
3. Interestingly, the ECtHR does not treat the confiscation of documents from the lawyer as an interference with the procedural requirements implicit in Article 8 ECHR, but as one that violated Article 34 ECHR.
Other Article violation? Yes, Article 34 ECHR
Damage awarded Dismisses the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
Documents Judgment