Background

Decision No. 225 of the Tashkent City Khokim, dated 19 December 2019, allocated B-B Story LLC a 0.925-hectare plot of land on Oltintepa Street, Tashkent (1). Decision No. 225 sanctioned the construction of multi-story residential buildings, with two parking levels, and a playground for children (ibid.) As well, 5 per cent of the new flats would be social housing (ibid.) On this plot of land there were eight two-storey residential buildings, each with eight flats, that constructed in the early 1960s for brick factory workers (2). In total, there were 64 private flats and one state post office on the land plot (3).

Madina Khasanova is one of the residents of 247 Oltintepa Street which is located on the land plot in question in decision no. 225 (4). Khasanova has lived in a flat in this building (which she owns) since 2009 (ibid.)

Mirzo-Ulugbek Inter-District Civil Court – 2019/2020

In November 2019, BB Stroy LLC filed a case with the Mirzo-Ulugbek Inter-District Civil Court to evict M. Khasanova from her residence (ibid.)

On an unknown date, Madina Khasanova filed a case with the same court against BB-Story LLC in order to stop the construction works (ibid.)

Judge G. Shurkurlaeva considered both claims together (case no. 2-1001-1949/45140) and issued their decision on 30 September 2020 (ibid.) The judge rules against both claims (ibid.) In relation to BB Stroy LLC’s claim against Khasanova, the judge explains that proper procedures had not been followed in regards to compensating Khasanova, and that BB Stroy LLC did not convince the court that the offered compensation was adequate (ibid.) According to the document, BB Stroy LLC did not carry out a proper evaluation of Khasanova’s property, and also tried to offer Khasanova a compensatory property that was still under construction, and therefor full details about the property were not provided to Khasanova (ibid.) In an AsiaTerra article, Khasanova claims that she was offered a flat in compensation was had a market value of 30 per cent lower than her flat on Oltintepa Street (2). In relation to Khasanova’s claim against BB Stroy LLC, the judge concluded that BB Stroy LLC had the correct legal documentation to carry on the demolition/construction works (ibid.)

Appeal – December 2020

On an unknown date, BB Stroy LLC appealed the decision by filing a case (no. 4-679/20) with the cassation instance of the Tashkent City Civil Court which was considered by the cassation board (presided over by A. Igamberdiev, and the two judges were I. E. Almanov, and G. Ziganshina) (ibid.) On 1 December 2020, the court upheld the decision of the previous court, not evicting Khasanova (ibid.)

Supreme court – May 2021

On an unknown date, BB Stroy LLC filed an appeal with the Supreme Court (5). On 5 May 2021, a decision was issued by the cassation board (President – J. Rasulova; Judges – M. Rabieva and A. Kasymova) on the case (no. 12-329-21) and overturned the two previous decisions on the basis that BB Stroy LLC established that they had held oral discussions with the defendant regarding compensation, and in writing by Telegram (ibid.) The defendant confirmed this fact, but argued, according to an AsiaTerra article, that she was not satisfied with the proposed options (2). The court ordered the case to be referred back to the appeal court for reconsideration (5).

Tashkent City Civil Court – appeal November 2021

On 19 November 2021, the appellate board of the Tashkent City Civil Court (President – B. Madaminov, S. M. Safoeva and M. I. Zakirova) ruled on case no. 3-908/21, overturning the Mirzo-Ulugbek Inter-District Civil Court’s decision, and, in effect, ordering Khasanova’s eviction from her property (6). According to an Asia Terra article, this was on the basis that the court had ordered a forensic construction examination through the Suleymanova Institute of Forensic Examinations who concluded that the flat that was being offered in compensation was larger than Khasinova’s flat (2). Khasanova claims that she was not satisfied with the flat because it was in a more remote area of Tashkent than her own (ibid.) She offered options for a flat closer to her neighbourhood, but the developer refused (ibid.)

Supreme court – January 2022

On an unknown date, Khasanova filled a cassation claim with the Supreme Court (cassation board – D. Israilova, A. Ikromov, and O. Nazarov; case no. 6-297-22) which, on 25 January 2022, upheld the decision of the appellate court (5).

Eviction

In a video posted to YouTube by Housing.uz (4 October 2022) which appears to have been filmed by by Khasanova and her husband in which you can see Khasanova talking with a man who appears to be wearing the uniform of an officer of the Prosecutor's Office's Enforcement Bureau (7). The video shows two removal trucks filled with possessions, as well as approximately a dozen men stood around (ibid.) The same footage was posted on a Facebook group called Tashkent SNOS (in sections) by Khasanova on 16 February 2022, which appears to be the date of the incident. This footage can be found here (https://www.facebook.com/100002031903715/videos/pcb.1353548621733185/1283937405426346 , https://www.facebook.com/100002031903715/videos/pcb.1353548621733185/1147050706031186 , https://www.facebook.com/100002031903715/videos/pcb.1353548621733185/911029402860122)

Constitutional court – April/May 2022

On 19 April 2022, Khasanova lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Uzbekistan (8). The court considered whether articles 197 and 206 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan and articles 11 and 27 of the Housing Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan were compatible with Articles 53 and 54 of the Constitution (ibid.) On 31 May 2022, the case was heard by the constitutional court which decided the following:

“1. The amendment of Part 12 of Article 55 of the Civil Code, Part 83, Part 166, Part 198, Part 199, and Part 206 of the Civil Code, as well as the Part 7 of Article 197 of the Civil Code, which states that "the law on the protection of ownership rights annuls the right to ownership ... based on legislative acts that nullify the right to ownership," in Law No. 683 of the Republic of Uzbekistan "On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Republic of Uzbekistan," adopted on April 21, 2021, should not be considered consistent with the Constitution. 2. In accordance with the second part of Article 73 of the Constitutional Law "On the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Uzbekistan," in cases specified by the Constitutional Court's decisions, a normative legal act or its part, which is considered inconsistent with the Constitution according to the Constitutional Court's decision, loses its effect. In accordance with the third part of this article, a state body that accepted a document that is not consistent with the Constitution, based on the decision of the Constitutional Court, must bring it into conformity with the Constitution within one month. 3. The Part 5 of Article 11 and Part 6 of the Constitution, the second part of the Constitutional Law "On the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Uzbekistan," Part 69, Part 72, Part 82, Part 86 of the Constitution, and Part 1 of Article 19 of the Law "On the Protection of Private Property and Guarantees of Property Owners' Rights," should be understood in accordance with the Constitution” (translated by Chat GPT) (ibid.)

Outcome

After Khasanova’s eviction from her residence she alleges that she filed a claim with the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Uzbekistan. She claims that the constitutional court ruled in her favour and she tried to resubmit a claim with the civil, appellate and supreme courts all of whom did not wish to reconsider the case. This information was provided to project researchers informally by Khasanova, and cannot be verified with documentation (which has not yet been provided).