5.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Baku. She is an Azerbaijani national of Tatar origin and has no relatives in Azerbaijan. 6.  The applicant was the owner of flat no. 51, with a surface area of 28.5 sq. m, situated on the first floor of building no. 58 on Fuzuli street, in Baku. 7.  The building where the applicant’s flat was located was built in 1908 and was classified as an architectural monument. It was registered on the list of “Historical and Cultural Immovable Property of Local Importance” established by a decision of 2 August 2001 of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Azerbaijan. 8.  On 24 September 2008 the Head of the Baku City Executive Authority (“the BCEA”) issued order no. 511 entitled “Concerning Construction of a New Park Complex, Relocation of Residential and Non‑Residential Accommodation from that Area” (Yeni park kompleksinin salınması, ərazidə yerləşən yaşayış və qeyri-yaşayış sahələrinin köçürülməsi haqqında) (“the order of 24 September 2008”). The order of 24 September 2008 reads:
“The Baku City Executive Authority has in recent years taken the appropriate steps in the organisation of renovation projects, which comply with international standards, in the capital of the Republic of Azerbaijan within the framework of the economic development programmes carried out in the Republic, and in this connection, in accordance with the economic development of the city, renovation and reconstruction projects have been continuously carried out in areas which are for the communal use of inhabitants, such as municipal roads, streets and squares, parks and avenues, as well as residential areas.
In accordance with an instruction from the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan, the task of demolishing the buildings located behind Heydar Aliyev Palace (the area bounded by Fuzuli, Samed Vurgun, Shamsi Badalbeyli and Tobchubashov streets) and constructing a new garden-park complex in that area was assigned to the Baku City Executive Authority and it was decided that the compensation due in respect of residential and non-residential premises situated in that area would be paid by the State Oil Company of the Republic of Azerbaijan.
It should be emphasised that, as current legislation has not so far provided rules concerning evaluation in connection with the relocation of dwellings situated in a demolition area and purchased for State needs, there are difficulties in relation to the relocation of the population residing in such dwellings. Moreover, when such relocation is carried out by State bodies, the population overestimates the value of their homes, offering them for a price several times higher than their market value, resulting in additional expense. For these reasons, it was decided that a natural person, namely Kazimov Rufan Habil oglu, would be contracted to conduct negotiations with the people residing at the above-mentioned addresses and carry out their relocation.
In this connection, on the basis of a letter from the Baku City Executive Authority, the State Oil Company of the Republic of Azerbaijan transferred 5 (five) million manats to the bank account of natural person Kazimov Rufan Habil oglu for the purpose of executing the aforementioned tasks, and this amount was duly spent.
In the next phase, the State Oil Company did not consider it appropriate to transfer the remaining part of the amount directly to the bank account of a natural person and instead proposed to transfer it to the Baku City Executive Authority’s bank account.
In this connection, the Baku City Executive Authority addressed a letter dated 17.09.2008, no. 7-363/4g, to the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Azerbaijan and, by a letter of 18.09.2008, no. 04/02/03-333-5099, the Ministry confirmed that it did not object to the carrying out of the above-mentioned operations.
Taking into consideration the aforementioned and the corresponding instruction issued by the honourable President, 1.  As the construction of a park was planned in the area located behind Heydar Aliyev Palace (the area bounded by Fuzuli, Samed Vurgun, Shamsi Badalbeyli and Tobchubashov streets), the relocation of residential and non-residential areas located on that territory should be ensured by compensating them in accordance with the requirements of the legislation. 2.  The negotiations with the owners of residential and non-residential facilities located in that area and their relocation in exchange for compensation should be conducted by natural person Kazimov Rufan Habil oglu on the basis of the contract concluded between the parties and, following the end of these operations, the Baku City Executive Authority should be provided with the corresponding documents. 3.  The accountancy service of the Baku City Executive Authority’s Administration should ensure the transfer to the bank account of R.H. Kazimov, a natural person, of the amount paid to the Baku City Executive Authority’s bank account by the State Oil Company of the Republic of Azerbaijan in connection with the aforementioned relocation. 4.  The Head of the Baku City Executive Authority’s Administration, B. Farajbayli, should be designated responsible for the supervision of the execution of the order.” 9.  At the beginning of 2010 the Baku City Executive Authority (BCEA) began to construct fences around the building in which the applicant resided. The BCEA’s employees verbally instructed the residents to leave their homes in exchange for compensation of 1,500 Azerbaijani manats (AZN) per sq. m of their property. 10.  In February 2010, at the request of the BCEA, various commercial companies occupying the ground floor of the building were evicted. The applicant’s neighbours faced the same situation and many of them gave in to the BCEA’s pressure. In particular, residents occupying the flats situated on the top floor of the building left their homes. Following their departure, the BCEA’s employees destroyed these flats and the roof of the building. As a result, rainwater began to enter into the building, making living conditions impossible for the applicant. 11.  In support of her version of the events, the applicant submitted several video recordings. It is apparent from the video recordings that the building in question was surrounded by fences and workers were demolishing the building’s roof. It is also clear from the video recordings that the premises and flats located on the ground and top floors of the building, as well as other buildings next to the latter building, had already been demolished. In support of her claim, the applicant also submitted photographs which corroborate the video recordings. 12.  In March 2010 a high-ranking official of the BCEA, Z.I., asked the applicant and other remaining residents of the building to leave their flats and tried to impose a one-week deadline for vacating them. The BCEA did not ask the residents to conclude a contract of sale with it, but instead with a third party named Rufan Kazimov. This person, who had no official role within the BCEA, acted as the purchaser in all the contracts of sale concluded with the residents of the area. 13.  From the beginning of April 2010, telephone lines to the building were cut off for a period of two months and power cuts became usual. The building’s water pump disappeared. In the view of the applicant, all these actions were taken by the BCEA in order to force her and other residents to vacate their flats. 14.  Following the applicant’s complaints to various domestic authorities about the unlawful actions of the BCEA’s employees, the executive authorities informed the applicant, by a letter dated 7 July 2010 and signed by the Head of the BCEA’s Administration, that a new park was to be constructed in that area and that she would be compensated in the amount of AZN 1,500 per sq. m of her property. The letter reads:
“Your complaint, forwarded from the General Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Azerbaijan to the Baku City Executive Authority, was examined.
You are hereby informed that it has been decided, in accordance with “the General Development Plan of Baku City” (Bakı Şəhərinin İnkişafının Baş Planı) approved by decision no. 182 of the Soviet of Ministers of the Republic of Azerbaijan on 18 May 1987 and decision no. 9/340 of the Executive Committee of the Soviet of People’s Deputies of 30 August 1989, to demolish the buildings situated in the area behind Heydar Aliyev Palace (the area bounded by Fuzuli, Samed Vurgun, Shamsi Badalbeyli and Tobchubashov streets) and to construct a garden-park complex there.
In accordance with an instruction from the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan, the task of demolishing the buildings located in that area and the construction of a modern garden-park complex has been assigned to the Baku City Executive Authority.
The eviction of the area and the payment of compensation are to be carried out in accordance with the Head of the Baku City Executive Authority’s order no. 511 of 24 September 2008 and it has been decided to pay compensation of AZN 1,500 per sq. m of residential and non-residential accommodation located in that area.” 15.  The applicant refused to leave her flat in these circumstances. 16.  The Government did not submit any comment in respect of the applicant’s submissions. 17.  At around 9 a.m. on 19 November 2010 the applicant’s building was surrounded by the BCEA’s employees and police officers. 18.  At 9.11 a.m. there was a knock on the door of the applicant’s flat. When the applicant looked through the peephole, she saw about ten individuals including police officers and other employees. They ordered her to open the door. The applicant refused to do so, saying that there was no court order for her eviction. 19.  Following the applicant’s refusal, they broke down the door and entered the flat against the applicant’s will. The applicant asked them to leave her flat immediately, however they refused to do so. 20.  According to the applicant, at around 9.30 a.m. she called an ambulance because she did not feel well. The ambulance arrived quickly, but the police did not allow the doctor to enter the flat. 21.  When the applicant’s condition worsened, she was taken outside by a police officer and the doctor was able to treat her in front of the building. 22.  In support of her version of the events, the applicant submitted video recordings showing the circumstances of her eviction from the flat. It is apparent from the video recordings that people were breaking down the door of the applicant’s flat since the applicant refused to open it, saying that the case was still pending before the court. The next footage shows a group of the BCEA’s employees and police officers in uniform who walked into the flat and took the applicant’s belongings and furniture while she was still present in the flat, lying on a sofa. It is also apparent from the video recordings that the applicant did not feel well and asked the police officers and the BCEA’s employees to call the doctor who was outside the building at that time. 23.  At 10 a.m. the applicant was taken to Nasimi District Police Station No. 22, where she was detained in a room with other residents of the building. At the police station, she felt unwell and an ambulance was called again. She was examined by a doctor and a relevant medical certificate was issued in this respect. It is recorded on the medical certificate that the ambulance arrived at the police station at 10.45 a.m. and provided the applicant with medical assistance at the police station. 24.  At 6.30 p.m. a police officer asked the applicant and other residents to make statements indicating that they had been taken to the police station because they had created a disturbance. However, they refused to do so. 25.  The police officer then asked them to sign a statement confirming that they had refused to write any statement. The applicant refused to do so. 26.  At 7.10 p.m. the applicant was released from the police station. She was not provided with any document concerning her detention by the police. 27.  Following her release, the applicant returned to her flat which, by this time, had been wrecked by the BCEA’s employees. She was informed by Z.I., the official of the BCEA, that her belongings and furniture had been removed from the flat and taken to a warehouse. After her arrival at the warehouse, the applicant discovered that many of her belongings and furniture had been damaged and that some of them had disappeared. 28.  On 22 November 2010 the building was completely demolished by the BCEA. 29.  On 19 November 2010 the applicant and a group of people were taken to the police station because they had organised an unauthorised demonstration protesting against their relocation. As they refused to abandon the gathering despite a police warning, the police took the applicant and other attendees to the police station at 11.10 a.m. and they were released at 1.50 p.m. following discussions with them. The police did not draw up a record of detention in respect of the applicant because she had not been detained in an administrative sense. 30.  In support of their version of the events, the Government submitted a report (raport), dated 19 November 2010, stating that eight individuals, including the applicant, had been taken to Nasimi District Police Station No. 22 because they had tried to organise an unlawful gathering. This report was addressed to the Head of Nasimi District Police Station No. 22 and was signed by three police officers. The relevant part of the report reads:
“I am writing to inform you that at around 11 a.m. on 19 November 2010, on the basis of an instruction from the police administration that several individuals who had been holding an unlawful demonstration on Fuzuli street were to be taken to Police Station No. 22, we took them to this police station, where it was established that the identity of these individuals was as follows:
...
We ask you to order to take legal steps in respect of these individuals.” 31.  The Government also submitted an administrative offence record drawn up on 19 November 2010 according to which the applicant had been warned under Article 298 of the Code of Administrative Offences concerning violation of the rule regulating the organisation and holding of gatherings. The exact time when the record was drawn up was not indicated and the record was not signed by the applicant. 32.  The Government also submitted an extract from the “registration log of materials relating to administrative offences” (inzibati xətalara dair materialların qeydiyyat kitabı). According to the extract, the applicant was taken to the police station at 11.10 a.m. as a result of “an attempt to hold an unlawful demonstration” (qanunsuz piketə cəhd) and was released at 1.50 p.m. 33.  On 22 November 2010 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the court alleging the unlawful deprivation of her liberty by the police. She submitted the same factual information as that submitted to the Court (see paragraphs 17-27 above), claiming that on 19 November 2010 she had been unlawfully detained at Nasimi District Police Station No. 22 from 10 a.m. to 7.10 p.m. In this connection she submitted that she had been detained by the police to enable her forcible eviction from her flat to be organised. She further complained that her right to respect for her home had been violated because the police had unlawfully entered her flat. 34.  In the course of the proceedings before the first-instance court, on 30 November 2010 the Head of Nasimi District Police Station No. 22 submitted a letter concerning the events of 19 November 2010 to the court. The letter, which was addressed to the President of the Nasimi District Court, reads:
“Further to your letter of 23 November 2010 no. 6(006)-40/2010, you are hereby informed that at 11 a.m. on 19 November 2010 citizen Khalikova Nuriya Abazovna and another eight individuals, ... , were taken to Nasimi District Police Station no. 22 by police officers in accordance with the instruction issued by the Nasimi District Police administration, since they had tried to hold an unlawful demonstration in front of building no. 58 on Fuzuli street. “Prophylactic conversations” (profilaktik söhbətlər) were held with them, reports were drawn up in respect of them under Article 298 of the Code of Administrative Offences and they were released, as provided for by the law, following a period not exceeding three hours.” 35.  It is apparent from the transcript of the hearing held on 10 December 2010 that two witnesses, F.G. and L.A., testified at the hearing in support of the applicant’s submissions. In particular, they stated that the applicant was taken to the police station at 10 a.m. and that they had been released at around 8 p.m. They further submitted that the police officers and other employees had unlawfully entered their flat by breaking down the door and that they had been detained by the police so that their forcible eviction from their flat could be effected. 36.  The representative of Nasimi District Police Station No. 22, the police officer E.N., was also heard at the same hearing. He stated before the court that the applicant had not been ill-treated during her stay at the police station and that he had personally called an ambulance when she felt unwell. The applicant was then provided with medical assistance by a doctor at the police station. He further stated that initially he had not known why the applicant and the other people had been at the police station and had learnt later that they had been taken there because they had participated in an unlawful demonstration. 37.  It is also apparent from the transcript of the hearing that – in support of her claim that she had been taken to the police station at 10 a.m. – the applicant submitted a copy of the medical certificate of 19 November 2010 confirming that an ambulance had arrived at the police station at 10.45 a.m. and had provided her with medical assistance. The applicant also submitted the video recordings showing how the police had broken down the door of her flat and entered it, and how her belongings and furniture had then been taken away by the BCEA’s employees in the presence of the police officers. During the examination of the video recordings at the hearing, it was established that the video recordings had been filmed on the applicant’s mobile phone camera between 9.11 a.m. and 9.45 a.m. on 19 November 2010 and their authenticity was confirmed. 38.  On 20 December 2010 the Nasimi District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. The court relied on the letter of 30 November 2010 submitted by the Head of Nasimi District Police Station No. 22 and the administrative offence record of 19 November 2010, according to which the applicant had received a warning from the police on account of holding an unlawful demonstration. The court also held that there was no criminal element in that case and that the applicant could appeal against her administrative conviction by the police. The court made no mention of the evidence submitted by the applicant in support of her claim, such as the video recordings and the medical certificate. The court was also silent as to the legality of the police intrusion into the applicant’s flat. As to the witness statements from F.G. and L.A., the court contented itself with holding that the witnesses had not stated that they had been ill-treated at the police station during their detention, without considering their submissions that the applicant had been taken to the police station at 10 a.m. and released at around 8 p.m. and that the police had unlawfully entered their flat in order to carry out a forcible eviction. The relevant part of the decision reads:
“The court, having examined the parties’ explanations and the documents submitted to it, considers that the complaint should not be granted.
In fact, it is stated in letter no. 9/13-22-4019 dated 30.11.2010, which was submitted to the court, that at 11 a.m. on 19 November 2010 citizen Khalikova Nuriya Abazovna and other eight individuals, ... , were taken to Nasimi District Police Station no. 22 by police officers in accordance with the instruction issued by the Nasimi District Police administration as they tried to hold an unlawful demonstration in front of building no. 58 on Fuzuli street. Prophylactic conversations were held with them, reports were drawn up in respect of them under Article 298 of the Code of Administrative Offences and they were released, as provided for by the law, following a period not exceeding three hours.
The report dated 19 November 2010 submitted at the court hearing by police major E.N. from Nasimi District Police Station no. 22 states that police officers ... drew up this report, addressed to M.M., the Head of Nasimi District Police Station No. 22, indicating that the applicant, Khalikova Nuriya, and the other individuals indicated in the report were taken to Police Station no. 22 at the request of the administration because they had held a gathering at 58 Fuzuli Street. The report included a request for an order to take legal steps in respect of these individuals.
...
Administrative offence record no. 943 drawn up on 19 November 2010 in respect of Khalikova Nuriya, which was submitted to the court, states that N. Khalikova was found guilty under Article 298 of the Code of Administrative Offences for unlawfully demonstrating at 58 Fuzuli Street and a warning was issued to her as an administrative punishment. N. Khalikova refused to sign the record or to give any explanation. F.G. and L.A., who were questioned at the court hearing in the capacity of witnesses, stated that when they were taken to the police station and during their stay there they had not witnessed any acts of ill-treatment or any other unlawful action against the applicant. On the contrary, when they were on the second floor of the police station, they and other individuals present there were well-treated by the police officers and, when N. Khalikova felt unwell, the police officers had called an ambulance. These facts were also confirmed by the applicant.
Taking into consideration the aforesaid, the court considers that the facts described in the present complaint do not provide grounds for a criminal prosecution. For this reason, the complaint should not be examined in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Azerbaijan.
In fact, it was established during the court examination that the applicant had been invited to attend Nasimi District Police Station No. 22 of Baku City in connection with the allegation that she had committed an administrative offence.” 39.  The applicant appealed against this decision, reiterating that she had been unlawfully detained by the police and that the police had unlawfully entered her flat by breaking down the door. She pointed out that her claim was supported by witness testimonies, video recordings and a medical certificate. In this connection, she pointed out that she had neither organised nor participated in any demonstration on 19 November 2010. She further submitted that, in any event, she could not have participated in such a gathering held at 11 a.m., as alleged by the police, because she had been taken to the police station at 10 a.m. and this fact was supported by the medical certificate which established that the ambulance arrived at the police station at 10.45 a.m. to give her first aid. Lastly, she submitted that it was clear from the video recordings that the police officers and the BCEA’s employees had unlawfully entered her flat. 40.  On 13 January 2011 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal without addressing the applicant’s particular arguments. 41.  The applicant received the appellate court’s decision on 29 January 2011. 42.  Prior to the physical demolition of her flat, on 14 April 2010 the applicant brought an action against the BCEA, the Nasimi District Executive Authority (“the NDEA”) and the Nasimi District Police Office (“the NDPO”) claiming violation of her property rights. She claimed, in particular, that the actions of the BCEA’s employees seeking to evict her and other residents from their flats had been unlawful and asked the court to eliminate the obstacles preventing her from enjoying her ownership rights. She maintained that the construction of the fences around her flat by the BCEA and the demolition of the buildings located in the neighbourhood had been unlawful and asked the court to declare unlawful the BCEA’s orders of 30 August 1989 and 24 September 2008 providing her relocation and the construction of a park in that area. She submitted in this connection that the BCEA was not entitled under domestic law to make decisions on expropriation and that the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Azerbaijan had not taken any expropriation decision in respect of the building where she resided, as required by the domestic law where such expropriation was to be carried out. She further argued that, as the building in question was classified as an architectural monument, it should be protected by the State and could not be demolished. 43.  On 22 April 2010 the Nasimi District Court refused to admit the claim. The court held that the applicant had failed to submit either original or notarised copies of the documents in support of her claim. 44.  On 27 May 2010 the Baku Court of Appeal quashed the first‑instance court’s decision and remitted the case to the first-instance court for examination. 45.  In the proceedings before the first-instance court, the hearings were postponed several times due to the absence of the BCEA’s representative. 46.  At the hearing held on 2 September 2010 the representative of the BCEA lodged an objection disputing the territorial competence of the Nasimi District Court. The judge dismissed the objection. The BCEA appealed against the court’s dismissal decision. 47.  On 11 October 2010 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the BCEA’s appeal. 48.  On 4 November 2010 the Nasimi District Court scheduled a hearing on the merits for 22 November 2010. 49.  On 13 November 2010 the BCEA lodged an action with the Nasimi District Court against nineteen residents of the area, including the applicant. The BCEA asked the court to order the residents’ eviction from their flats, the cancellation of their ownership rights and the demolition of the buildings located in that area. By way of legal basis for the claim, the BCEA relied on the instructions of the President of the Republic and the order of 24 September 2008. 50.  Following the events of 19 November 2010 and the physical demolition of the building on 22 November 2010, the applicant lodged an additional claim for AZN 508,038 in respect of pecuniary damage and AZN 100,000 for non-pecuniary damage for demolition of her flat. 51.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a request with the court seeking suspension of the examination of the BCEA’s claim until the end of the civil proceedings instituted by her against the BCEA. On 30 November 2010 the Nasimi District Court dismissed the applicant’s request. On the same day the Nasimi District Court decided to join the two proceedings and examine them together. 52.  The applicant appealed against this decision. On 28 December 2010 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. 53.  In the meantime, on an unspecified date, the applicant submitted to the court additional documents in support of her claims in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. In particular, she submitted an expert report dated 29 December 2010 from a private company stating that the market value of her flat was AZN 71,000, since the market price of a similar flat located in the same area as the applicant’s flat was AZN 2,500 per sq. m. She also submitted a document dated 21 December 2010 from the Women’s Crisis Centre. The document indicated that on 24 November 2010 the applicant had applied to the centre suffering from insomnia, loss of appetite and psychological post-traumatic stress. 54.  On 12 January 2011 the Nasimi District Court delivered its judgment on the merits. The court dismissed the applicant’s claim noting that, as the building in question had been demolished, restitution of the property was not possible. The court further held that the main dispute between the applicant and the BCEA concerned the amount of the proposed compensation and that the applicant could lodge a separate lawsuit on this issue. However, the first-instance court’s judgment was silent as to the specific complaints raised by the applicant in her lawsuit. In particular, the court did not address the lawfulness of the BCEA’s actions, or of the building’s demolition or of the applicant’s eviction from her flat. The relevant part of the judgment reads:
“It is apparent from the Baku City Executive Authority’s order of 24 September 2008 headed “Concerning Construction of a New Park Complex, Relocation of Residential and Non-Residential Accommodation from that Area” that it was decided that as the construction of a park was planned in the area located behind Heydar Aliyev Palace (the area bounded by Fuzuli, Samed Vurgun, Shamsi Badalbeyli and Tobchubashov streets), residential and non-residential properties located in that area should be relocated and compensation paid in accordance with the legal requirements. Furthermore, the negotiations with the owners of residential and non-residential properties located in that area and their relocation in exchange for compensation were to be conducted by Kazimov Rufan Habil oglu, a natural person, on the basis of a contract concluded between the parties, and following the end of these operations the Baku City Executive Authority should be provided with all documents relating to the operation.
It is stated in the Baku City Executive Authority’s letter of 7 April 2010, no. kl/112/10, addressed to the applicant that, it being planned to demolish buildings situated in the area between Fuzuli (former Basin) and S. Badalbayli (former Dmitrov) Streets, from Fuzuli Square to S. Vurgun Street in accordance with the General Development Plan of Baku City approved by decision no. 9/340 of the Baku City Executive Committee of the Soviet of People’s Deputies of 30 August 1989, this area is to be demolished and a new garden-park complex constructed there. As the area in question is to be included in the garden-park complex, it was decided to pay compensation of AZN 1,500 per sq. m for residential and non-residential properties located in that area, in accordance with market value.
The valuation report of 29 December 2010, no. MB 03/719, by “MBA-Marketing Business Analysis” consulting and valuation company states that the market value of flat no. 51 located at 58 Fuzuli Street in the Nasimi District in Baku was AZN 71,000 for 29 December 2010, namely AZN 2,500 per sq. m.
...
It was established during the court’s examination that flat no. 51 located at 58 Fuzuli Street in the Nasimi District in Baku, owned by the applicant as her private property, had been demolished by the respondent and it is therefore impossible to restore it to its previous condition. For this reason, the applicant’s claims in this respect could not be granted.
The Court considers on the basis of the aforementioned that the claim of the applicant Khalikova Nuriya Abazovna against the Baku City Executive Authority and others concerning “prevention of interference with her property rights, payment of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage” should not be granted and it should be explained to the applicant Khalikova Nuriya Abazovna that she has the right to bring an action before a court with regard to the amount of compensation proposed by the respondent parties.” 55.  On 11 February 2011 the applicant appealed against the first‑instance court’s judgment. She complained, in particular, that the court had failed to examine her complaint concerning the unlawful demolition of her flat by the BCEA and the violation of her property rights. 56.  On 2 June 2011 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 12 January 2011, reiterating the first-instance court’s findings. The appellate court’s judgment was almost identical in its wording to the first-instance court’s judgment of 12 January 2011. 57.  On 1 October 2011 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal against this judgment. She relied on Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, complaining that she had been unlawfully deprived of her property, that her right to respect for private and family life and home had been violated and that the domestic courts had failed to deliver a reasoned judgment. 58.  On 13 December 2011 the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s judgment. 59.  In the meantime, on 1 June 2010, prior to the physical demolition of her flat, the applicant lodged another action against the BCEA, the NDEA and the NDPO claiming that the destruction of the roof of the building and the flats situated on the top floor had made her flat unfit for human habitation. She asked the court to order the respondents to repair the building and restore it to the condition it had been on 31 December 2009. 60.  On 8 June 2010 the Nasimi District Court refused to admit her claim, finding that a claim against the BCEA should be lodged with the Sabail District Court. 61.  On 6 July 2010 the applicant lodged another action against the BCEA, the NDEA and the NDPO. The applicant reiterated her previous complaints. She also asked the court to provide her with a copy of the contract, if any, concluded between the BCEA and Rufan Kazimov concerning the purchase of the buildings situated in the area in question. The applicant also complained about unlawful actions of the BCEA’s employees, alleging that they had cut both the power cable to her air‑conditioning unit and the water supply pipe, in order to force her to leave the flat. 62.  On 19 July 2010 the Nasimi District Court refused to admit her claim, holding that a claim against the BCEA should be lodged with the Sabail District Court. 63.  On 27 July 2010 the applicant appealed against the decision of 19 July 2010. 64.  On 26 August 2010 the Baku Court of Appeal quashed the impugned decision and remitted the case to the first-instance court for examination. The court held that the applicant’s action should be examined by the Nasimi District Court. 65.  On 27 January 2011, more than two months after the demolition of her home, the applicant concluded a contract of sale with Rufan Kazimov. In accordance with the contract the applicant sold her flat of 28.5 sq. m, which no longer physically existed at the time when the contract was concluded, to Rufan Kazimov for the amount of AZN 42,750, in other words AZN 1,500 per sq. m. 66.  On 20 February 2011 the applicant lodged claims in addition to her previous lawsuit. She asked the court to declare unlawful the contract of sale concluded between her and Rufan Kazimov because it had been concluded under pressure. She submitted in this connection that she had been forced to conclude the contract because she had become homeless following the demolition of her flat and had not had any choice. 67.  On 21 April 2011 the Nasimi District Court delivered its judgment on the merits. The court dismissed the applicant’s claim, holding that the contract had been concluded in accordance with the relevant law within the framework of relocating the residents of the area where the construction of the park was planned. The court further held that the applicant had failed to prove that her rights had been violated by the BCEA. 68.  On 20 May 2011 the applicant appealed against this judgment, reiterating her previous complaints. 69.  On 11 August 2011 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first‑instance court’s judgment. 70.  On 19 December 2011 the Supreme Court upheld the Baku Court of Appeal’s judgment.