Introduction
One of the most common disputes in Azerbaijani court practice concerns the failure of the State Service for Property Registry to enforce court judgments. One of the recent cases handled by HGNS Counselor Law Firm related precisely to the separation of a share in jointly owned property. This article provides an overview of the court’s approach and the practical issues that arose in the case.
Facts of the Case
A real estate property located in Baku was inherited by a sister and a brother, each receiving a ½ share. The sister applied to the court to separate her share from the joint ownership in order to dispose of it. In her claim, she requested that the property be divided in kind, and if that was not possible, for the property to be sold at public auction and the proceeds divided equally between the claimant and the respondent.
During the expert examination conducted in the court of first instance, the expert confirmed that the property could be divided in kind. However, the parties failed to agree on which part should be allocated to whom. Both parties insisted on receiving the right-hand side of the divided property.
Although division in kind was technically possible, the court, noting the lack of agreement between the parties, rendered a judgment ordering the property to be sold at auction and the proceeds to be distributed equally between the claimant and the respondent.
The Court of Appeal’s Position
The respondent appealed against the judgment and, at the appellate stage, expressed agreement with the division in kind, stating readiness to take the left-hand side of the property. The Baku Court of Appeal upheld the appeal and rendered a new judgment, ordering the property to be divided in kind. The judgment also specified the exact description and size of the property allocated to each party.
Problems with Enforcement of the Judgment
Although the judgment entered into legal force, difficulties arose during enforcement by the Binagadi District Enforcement Department. The writ of execution was sent to the 1st Regional Office of the State Service for Property Registry. However, the office refused to enforce the judgment, despite the fact that the judgment clearly specified the areas belonging to each party.
As a result, the Binagadi District Enforcement Department terminated the enforcement proceedings, stating that the judgment had been executed, although, in fact, it had not. This prevented the parties from exercising their ownership rights.
Legal Concerns and Observations
The main problem in this case is that a final court judgment was effectively rendered meaningless. Due to the inaction of enforcement authorities, the claimant’s right to a fair trial and to property was seriously violated.
This situation also highlights a broader systemic concern—the effectiveness of enforcement of court judgments in Azerbaijan. When court judgments remain unenforced, public confidence in the judiciary is inevitably undermined.
Conclusion
HGNS Counselor Law Firm believes that the failure to enforce court judgments contradicts the principles of the rule of law. Justice is not ensured merely by the adoption of a judgment, but by its actual enforcement.
Transparency, efficiency, and accountability in the enforcement of court decisions are vital to the protection of citizens’ rights.
Note: An appeal has been lodged against the judgment of the Binagadi District Court. Further information regarding the outcome of the appeal will be provided on our website.