European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Chamangul MAMMADOVA v Azerbaijan - 46193/08 [2010] ECHR 1616 (30 September 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1616.html
Cite as: [2010] ECHR 1616
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
46193/08
by Chamangul MAMMADOVA
against Azerbaijan
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 30 September 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina
Vajić,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean
Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio
Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and André
Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 September 2008,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Chamangul Mammadova, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1965 and lives in Baku. She is represented before the Court by Mr I. Aliyev, a lawyer practising in Azerbaijan. The Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Asgarov.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
In 1995 the applicant bought a flat in Baku and on 31 January 1996 she was issued with an ownership certificate.
When she wanted to move to her new flat, the applicant became aware that the flat was occupied by M. and his family, who were internally displaced persons (“IDP”) from Shusha, a city under occupation of Armenian military forces following the Armenian-Azerbaijan conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh.
According to the applicant, despite her numerous demands, M. refused to vacate the flat noting that he was an IDP and he had no other place to reside in.
On an unspecified date in 1999, the applicant lodged a lawsuit with the Binagadi District Court asking the court to order the eviction of M. and his family from the flat.
On 27 July 1999 the Binagadi District Court granted the applicant's request. The court held that the applicant was the lawful owner of the flat and, therefore, the flat was unlawfully occupied by M. and his family. No appeals were filed against this judgment and, pursuant to the domestic law in force at the material time, it became enforceable within ten days after its delivery.
According to the applicant, M. and his family refused to comply with the judgment and the competent authorities had not taken any measures to enforce it.
According to the Government, the judgment of 27 July 1999 in the applicant's favour had been subsequently quashed by a decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Court and remitted for a new examination. As a result of the new proceedings, which ended on 10 March 2000, the applicant's claim was left without examination as the applicant had failed to appear for the court hearings.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention about the non-enforcement of the judgment of 27 July 1999.
The applicant also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the violation of her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions as a result of the non-enforcement of the judgment of 27 July 1999.
THE LAW
By a letter dated 23 February 2010 the Government's observations were sent to the applicant's representative, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 6 April 2010.
On 1 April 2010 the applicant's representative informed the Court that the applicant wished to withdraw the application.
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue her application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
André Wampach Christos Rozakis
Deputy Registrar President
