Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan concerned an Armenian refugee\u2019s complaint that, after having been forced to flee from his home in the Shahumyan region of Azerbaijan in 1992 during the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh, he had since been denied the right to return to his village and to have access to and use his property there.<\/p>\n
The Court confirmed that, although the village from which he had to flee was located in a disputed area, Azerbaijan had jurisdiction over it. Concerning the applicant\u2019s complaints, it held that there had been a continuing violation of Article 1(protection of property) of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, a continuing violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and a continuing violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention. The Court considered in particular that while it was justified by safety considerations to refuse civilians access to the village, the State had a duty to take alternative measures in order to secure the applicant\u2019s rights as long as access to the property was not possible.<\/p>\n\n
\n <\/div>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Historical Expropriation In a series of cases involving claims in Central and Eastern Europe arising from post-war adjustment of boundaries, appropriation and movement of peoples, the court held that pre-Convention expropriations were not covered by the Convention. The former property right must be sufficiently established. Where there is a procedure for recognition in national law […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[350],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22592"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22592"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22592\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":23587,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22592\/revisions\/23587"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22592"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22592"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22592"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}