FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 50430/06
by Nizami KARIMOV
against Azerbaijan
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 18 January 2011 as a Chamber composed of:
	Christos Rozakis, President,
	Nina Vajić,
	Khanlar Hajiyev,
	Dean Spielmann,
	Sverre Erik Jebens,
	Giorgio Malinverni,
	George Nicolaou, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 November 2006,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Nizami Karimov, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1947 and lives in Baku. 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.
A.  First set of proceedings
The applicant was the founder and director of a company called “20 Yanvar” Small Enterprise (“the Company”). By an order of 8 October 1992, issued by the Baku City Executive Authority, the Company was provided with a land plot for the construction of a manufactory (the manufactory was composed of a plot of land and a number of various constructions such as workshops, storehouse, etc.). The construction was finished in 1994 and a technical certificate was delivered on 27 September 1997 by the State Property Committee.
After having obtained the above-mentioned documents necessary for obtaining an ownership certificate, on an unspecified date in 1997, the applicant applied to the Ministry of Economic Development (“the Ministry”) for an ownership certificate for the manufactory. According to the applicant, despite his numerous demands, the Ministry refused to deliver an ownership certificate without any justification. It appears from the case file that by letters of 19 May 2003 and 15 April 2004, the Ministry informed the Company that the ownership certificate could not be issued because of the Company’s failure to provide the Ministry with all the required documents. However, the Ministry did not specify what documents were missing.
After receipt of the aforementioned letters, the Company lodged an action against the Ministry asking the court to compel the latter to issue an ownership certificate in respect of the manufactory and the plot of land on which it was situated. On 7 June 2004 Local Economic Court No. 1 delivered a judgment granting partially the Company’s claim. The court noted that all the documents required by the relevant domestic law for obtaining an ownership certificate had been submitted by the Company and, therefore, the Ministry was obliged to issue an ownership certificate with respect to the manufactory. However, the first‑instance court left the Company’s action without examination of the part concerning the delivery of an ownership certificate in respect of the plot of land on which the manufactory was situated. The court noted that, after the issuance of an ownership certificate with respect to the manufactory, the parties should resolve the matter concerning the ownership certificate with respect to the land by extrajudicial means in accordance with the relevant provisions of the domestic law concerning the sale of state-owned land to private persons.
The Ministry appealed against this judgment claiming misinterpretation of the domestic law. On 6 October 2004 the Economic Court dismissed the appeal noting that the material and procedural law had been applied correctly by the first-instance court. Pursuant to the domestic law, the judgment of 6 October 2004, as an appellate court’s judgment, became enforceable immediately upon its delivery.
On 24 August 2005 the Ministry lodged a cassation appeal asking for restoration of the missed time-limit for filing a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court through the Economic Court, as was required by the domestic law. On 19 September 2005 the Economic Court rejected the request noting that the Ministry had missed the three-month period for lodging a cassation appeal and there was no good reason for its restoration. On 22 December 2005 the Supreme Court upheld the Economic Court’s decision of 19 September 2005.
On 6 March 2009 the judgment of 7 June 2004 of Local Economic Court No. 1 was enforced and the applicant was issued an ownership certificate with respect to the manufactory, as well as the plot of land on which the manufactory was situated.
B.  Second set of proceedings
On an unspecified date in 2001, the Company lodged an action against an individual (A.) asking the court to order the destruction of an allegedly unlawful constructions carried out by A. next to the Company’s storehouse. The Company alleged that these constructions prevented the entry of the sunlight into the Company’s storehouse and it caused damage to various items kept there.
Following a series of the proceedings, by a final decision of 3 May 2006, the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ judgments dismissing the Company’s claim against A. as unsubstantiated.
COMPLAINTS
1.  Relying on Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant complained about the delay in enforcement of the judgment of 7 June 2004 of Local Economic Court No. 1, as upheld by the Economic Court’s judgment of 6 October 2004. He also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the violation of his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions as a result of non-enforcement of the above-mentioned judgment.
2.  As to the second set of proceedings, relying on Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant complained that the domestic courts had erred in assessing the evidence and that his property rights had been violated on account of the domestic courts’ unfair decisions.
THE LAW
I.  COMPLAINTS CONCERNING THE FIRST SET OF PROCEEDINGS
The Court notes that by a letter of 19 March 2009 the applicant informed the Court of his wish to withdraw the application due to the fact that the judgment of 7 June 2004 of Local Economic Court No. 1 had been enforced and that he had been issued an ownership certificate with respect to the manufactory and the plot of land on which the manufactory was situated.
The Court notes that by letters dated 30 March 2009, 16 April 2009 and 19 June 2009 the applicant clarified his intention to withdraw the application. In these letters, the applicant confirmed his wish to withdraw the application in respect of the complaints relating to the first set of proceedings, however he maintained his complaints in respect of the remainder of the application.
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application in respect of his complaints concerning the first set of proceedings, 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 this part of the application. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike this part of the application out of the list.
II.  COMPLAINTS CONCERNING THE SECOND SET OF PROCEEDINGS
Relying on Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant complained that the domestic courts had erred in assessing the evidence and that his property rights had been violated on account of the domestic courts’ unfair decisions. However, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court considers that this part of the application does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the Convention. It follows that it is inadmissible under Article 35 § 3 as manifestly ill-founded and therefore must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in so far as it relates to the complaints concerning first set of proceedings in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
	Søren Nielsen	Christos Rozakis
	Registrar	President