Olga Abdullaeva
Date of eviction
Land confiscation
Land tenure
- Life-long inheritable possession
- Permanent usage
Real property title
- Private ownership
Olga Abdullaeva
Victim(s)Summary
Olga Abdullaeva, born 1960, paediatrician by profession, retired, has lived in her house for 40 years. She inherited this house in 2014 after her husband died. She lives with her daughter, son-in-law and three small grandchildren (youngest born in 2021). Her plot of land is 350 sq.m. including the house of 100 sq meters.
The land plot and the house located at the address: 15a, S. Azimov Street, Yashnabad district, Tashkent belong to Olga on the basis of the following documents: • Certificate of ownership TS №0056207 dated 24.10.2014; • Certificate of the right to use the land plot TS №0011906 dated 24.10.2014; and • cadastral documents dated 24.10.2014.
This plot was given by the Tashkent city administration to Olga’s family in 1928. Since 2019, she has been trying to assert her right to the private property. (01), (02), (21)
Chronology:
"On May 25, 2018, some people came to our house with the words: 'Your house is under demolition!' but literally within a minute they apologized, because according to the documents we were not in their plan!", says Valeria Kuznetsova, Olga Abdullayeva's daughter (01).
The claim that Olga Abdullaeva's house was not in the plan of demolition, is also attested to by letters from the SUE ToshkentboshplanLITI (Tashkent Master Plan Institute.) and the Main Construction Department of Tashkent. It appears, therefore, on the basis of the land plot boundary plan within the Hokim decision, the land plot on which Olga's house is located was not allocated to "Training Project" LLC (23) (15)
According to the then valid article 4 of the PCM № 97 of May 29, 2006 "On the order of compensation to citizens and legal entities in connection with the withdrawal of land for state and public needs," the Khokimiyat of the Yashnabad region had to notify the property owners of the demolition in writing and against signature 6 months in advance, but this residents claim was not done.
On the 13th of March 2019, the developer initiated legal action against Olga Abdullaeva to evict her and rehouse her in a proper acquired by the developer, which Olga Abdullaeva is not happy with.
On the 20th of April 2019, the first hearing began in the Mirabad inter-district court for civil cases in Tashkent. The judge was Ms. M.Zakirova. At the trial there was a map with the already finished plot. Included within the map was the house of Abdullaeva and the neighbouring house. On this basis, the developer was able to evict Olga's neighbour through the courts. Ms Abdullaeva claims, however, this map was altered.
Despite this alleged alteration, the Mirabad inter-district civil court judge M. Zakirova is alleged to have said: "I have no grounds for eviction, but I will evict you!" (01), (02)
On the 11th of October 2019, the court ruled to deprive Olga Abdullaeva of her title to her home and to move her to a house chosen by the developer . The judge Zakirova was guided by the Articles 733, 109 of the Uzbek Civil Code, Article 71 of the Housing Code, Articles 249-253 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (04) (24)
An appeal was lodged by Olga Abdullayeva. Appeal board of the Tashkent city civil court (second instance) (05), Case n°3-17/20, features Juges Salakhutdinov D.N., Mirzaalimova G.M., Khakimova N. J. passed a decision on 13 March, 2020.
The Appeal board upheld the first-instance decision. The decision was grounded in DCM 97, May 29, 2006, articles 6, 8, & 14 about types and modes of compensation (24). The court ordered a valuation of Ms Abdullayeva's property through the Suleymanova Institute of Forensic Expertise. Olga Abdullayeva refused to let the experts in on the alleged grounds that they were not licensed to carry out appraisal activities (which is required by the Law on Appraisal Activities : (25))
The experts assessed Olga Abdullayeva's property, comparing it with the house next door, at UZS 365357066, the right to use the plot at UZS 704262231. Total value was estimated to be 1069619297 soums. The house, which the developer has offered Olga Abdullayeva is 5 rooms, 54 sqm, in total it has an area of 94.4 sqm. , a plot of 390 sq.m., which was valued by a private valuer at 840866840 soums.
Having found that the value of the houses to be demolished and the houses to be provided were of equal value, the court of first instance had concluded that the claim for eviction with compensation should be granted. The appeal court agreed with the above-mentioned decision of the court of first instance and considered it necessary to leave it unchanged, but with an addition to recover the difference in value, on the following grounds: DCM 97 , May 29, 2006 , §§ 8, 6 & 14, Art. 396 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 27. Housing Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan (24) (05).
The court ordered the developer to provide the difference between the value of the houses to be demolished and those to be provided in the amount of 269 million soums in favour of Abdullayeva. Regarding the fact that Abdullayeva's house was not originally included in the demolition scheme, the Head of the Yashnabad District Construction Department (GUAS) Mullajanov N.G. was interviewed. He explained that the construction plan shows the boundaries and points of the land plot allocated for construction to the developer. Abdullayeva's house is located between points 8 to 15 of the project. Therefore, Abdullayeva's argument that her house was outside the plot was unfounded, it was claimed. The court discussed Abdullayeva's arguments that the house she was given as compensation by the developer was actually within the demolition zone. A representative of the Main Department of Architecture and Construction of Tashkent responded that the house was in the demolition zone, but that the government had not yet made a decision on demolition. The court upheld the decision of the first instance and did not satisfy the defendant's complaint. (05)
In March 2020, the government of Uzbekistan declared a quarantine in connection with the coronavirus pandemic, causing the courts to suspend trials as well as the execution of court sentences (26).
However, on Friday, 4 September 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic did not stop officers of the Enforcement Bureau from forcibly removing belongings of the Abdullaeva's family from the house. The bailiffs threatened to kill the dog (06).
Only thanks to the Khokim of the Yashnabad district was Olga Abdullaeva able to stop the eviction and delay the "execution of the law" for a week. "Unfortunately, no matter how hard we tried to speed up the process of suspending the decision and drawing the attention of the Supreme Court to our problem, we were not heard. Our application is still pending. And tomorrow, on 11 September, they will come to break down our doors and forcibly evict us from our own home," says Valeria Kuznetsova - daughter of Olga Abdullaeva.
Fortunately, Olga managed to get a stay of execution of the court decision on the eviction before the Supreme Court (27).
Olga Abdullaeva complained to various public authorities about the verdict of the court, but she received no response. She then filed a complaint with the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing Balakrishnan Rajagopal. On the 15th of December, the Special Rapporteur wrote to the Uzbek Minister of Foreign Affairs A. Komilov asking the assistance of the Uzbekistani government (08).
Olga Abdullaeva also obtained assistance from the Ombudsman under the Uzbek Parliament Oliy Majlis, M. Ulugbek Mukhamadiev. He wrote a letter to the president of the Supreme Court K. Komilov where he described situation of Olga and the inconsistency of the lower courts' decisions with the Uzbek Law (14). The Ombudsman wrote: "The house provided does not meet the established legal requirements, namely unequal value, lack of choice, and the house is in a prospective demolition zone.
According to Article 7 of the Law of the RUz "On Protection of Private Property and Guarantees of Owners' Rights", the principle of priority of the owner's rights applies in the owner's relations with the state bodies, in accordance with which all irremovable contradictions and ambiguities of legislation arising in connection with the exercise of private property rights are interpreted in favour of the owner".
The Ombudsman also considers that the Hokim's decision did not follow the required procedure for approval by the Council of People's Deputies. That is, Khokim Decision No. 488 was not approved by the Council of People's Deputies, which contravenes article 10 of the Law on Local Authorities.
The provisions of the law concerning the seizure of land for state and public needs have been improperly applied according to the Ombudsman, as the construction of commercial housing is not included in the strictly limited list of these needs.
Finally, the Ombudsman also noted inappropriate application of law. The first-instance court applied Article 71 of the Housing Code, which describes eviction from municipal housing on the basis of public needs (14). That code should not been applied to this case, which did not involve municipal housing.
At the end of October 2020, Olga Abdullaeva received by post the decision of the Supreme Court no. 12-1379-20 of 15 October 2020. The decision stated that there were no grounds for supervisory review. Olga's application was considered by Judge Sh.R. Abbasov. In other words, the supervisory instance of the Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts (09).
Olga lodged a cassation appeal against this supervisory review decision of the Supreme Court. On 29 December, 2020, a panel of judges: Mirzaeva G., Islamova B. and Eshmuratova H. made a determination in case no. 6-1145-20.
The Judicial Board found that the Court did not take measures to eliminate contradictions between the site boundary plans submitted by the plaintiff and the defendant. The board found it should have sought the primary documents that were the basis for the Khokim's decision No. 488 of 27.03.2018 to establish the actual location of Olga Abdullaeva's house within or outside the boundaries of the plot allocated to Training Project LLC.
The courts should also have sought the records of the land allocation to establish whether Olga's house was among the properties. It has come to light that no khokim decision was issued to amend the original documents, so the changes are illegal. A visit to the site showed that Olga's house was outside the boundary of the plot allocated to Training Project Ltd, and there was no khokim's decision to amend the topographical map or to allocate additional land.
The courts failed to identify in detail the circumstances relevant to the proper resolution of the dispute. The conclusions of the courts did not correspond to the facts of the case. These circumstances require additional verification, investigation and assessment.
The courts did not engage the Tashkent Khokimiyat to clarify the above-mentioned circumstances and establish the truth regarding the documents that formed the basis for Khokim Decision No. 488, in particular the plan of boundaries of the allotted plot.
The court decided to overturn the decisions of the two lower instances and to remit the case for a new examination by the first-instance court. (29).
A new hearing of Olga's case at the district court began during February 2021, in the Mirabad inter-district court for civil cases, presided over by judge Khazratkulov O.T. (case No. 2-1002-2103/905)
The following is a summary of the Mirabad judgment delivered on 7 May, 2021 (17).
Olga's main argument against the demolition of her house had been that her house was not originally included in the site demolition plan (15). A representative of the Main Department of Architecture and Construction of Tashkent City stated that after the Khokim had issued a decision, a map of the plot had been prepared. During its production, shortcomings were detected and the borders of the plot were corrected. It is considered to be a mistake that the land plot erroneously included the roadway of the street. Making the correction is within the authority of the GUAS and does not require an additional decision. A representative of the Khokimiyat confirmed GUAS's words. However, according to the court's decision, the aforementioned experts did not cite the law governing land allocation and demolition adjustments (17).
The representative of the Ministry of Justice explained that under Article 53 of the Constitution, property rights are inviolable and protected by law. According to the Law "On Protection of Private Property and Guarantees of Owners' Rights", the owner's rights prevail in interrelations with state bodies. Therefore, all irremovable contradictions and ambiguities of the legislation are interpreted in favour of the owner (17).
The court however noted as a civil court it could not adjudicate on the Khokimiyat decree. It alos rejected the defendant's argument that the property lay outside the demolition plan.
Appeal board of the Tashkent City court for civil cases ( Ishankulova S.U. (president), Saidmuratova B.B. and Ziganshina G.R. (judges) ) heard the appeal of Olga during the process on the case N°3-1407/21. In its Decision of the of 0ctober 12, 2021, the appeal board upheld the decisions of the first-instance courts (18).
The decision of the Cassation board of the Supreme Court (Boltakhodjaeva I.A. (president), Khakimova Kh.T. and Eshmuratov Kh.A. (judges)) of February 17, 2022, N°6-3300-22, also upheld the decisions of the low instances. Olga should be evicted. (19).
On the basis of the Ruling of the Constitutional Court of 31.05.2022 that the articles applied by the courts for forced eviction do not comply with the Constitution.
On this basis Abdullayeva applied to the district court with a request to reconsider her case on newly discovered circumstances. However, by a decision of 29.06.2022 , the district court refused to consider the case. Subsequent instances also refused to consider the case (the Appeals Board - decision of 16.08.2022, the Supreme Court - decision of 14.11.2022).
And all the judges of the above mentioned courts didn't give Abdullayeva the right of attorney protection, the refusal was grounded by the developer's reluctance. Also, due to the reluctance of the builder, the courts refused Abdullayeva the right to make an audio recording even when she came to the meeting with an injured hand.
On June 29, 2022 a Law № 781 "On the procedure for withdrawal of land for public use with compensation," prohibiting a misinterpretation of the concept of "public needs," which again does not include the construction of commercial housing. However, the previous legislation did not consider commercial construction as public needs. According to Article 39 of the Law No. 781 , if prior to the enactment of this Law the procedures for the seizure of land plots were initiated, but the decision to seize the land plot was not taken in accordance with the procedure stipulated by Part one of Article 37 of the Land Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan, the land plot is subject to the procedures laid down in this Law. On the basis of this provision, Abdullaeva complained to the district court, but the latter by a decision dated 05.01.2023 refused to consider my complaint based on the adopted, where it is obliged to start examination from the beginning. Appeal instance decision 10.03.2023 also refused, without explaining the reasons. A cassation instance is yet to come.
On April 5, Abdullayeva's complaint about the illegal actions of Cadastral Service employees (Annex 1) is scheduled for consideration in the administrative court of Tashkent city. The Tashkent City Prosecutor's Office by its letter No. 10.2/4-90006/23 dated March 2022 informs that it initiated a criminal case against the officials of the Main Construction Department of Tashkent city. (Annex 2).
Eviction took place April 4,2023 (33, 34)
However, despite the fact that Abdullayeva's case is not yet finalized in the courts, the Bureau of forced execution of court decisions under the Prosecutor's Office notified her about the eviction procedure envisaged for April 3, 2022 at 10.00 a.m. (Annex 3). Besides, Olga received the letter about eviction on Saturday, April 1, i.e. when the state services do not work. Though by the rules for eviction she must be given a sufficient period of time, not less than 15 days.
Olga's narrative how the eviction took place. Me personnaly, I was the morning at home of Olga, but nothing happened. When the eviction had begun, other activists and bloggers came to observe the process.
«The eviction was scheduled for 3 April 2023 at 10:00. However, only the ambulance arrived in the morning and left half an hour later. We were told that they had received a call from the management saying that there would be no eviction.
However, at about 13:00 pm workers of the developer and the firm's director her-self, Aziza Popova, began arriving at the house.
No representatives of the authorities were present at first. Nobody asked me in the name of the Republic of Uzbekistan to open the door, nobody read out the order, nobody said that I was a debtor, nobody said that Training Project Ltd. is the owner of my house, and therefore a recoveror.
Staff, who said they were from Bureau for Enforcement of the Court decisions, appeared after the builder, but were passive and only watched, afraid to raise their eyes at me. The BfE representative asked me to go home and close the door, which we did. I did not see the ambulance (it is necessary for the procedure of the forced eviction), but Aziza said it was somewhere in the distance. I saw nothing other than a bulldozer in the yard of the house, plus my grand-children were crying.
Workers had dismantled the roof of the house, demolished part of the house and put a bulldozer - an excavator - in the yard. It was the builder who with his bulldozer broke the back of the house: the fence, the workshop, the shed, the dog aviary, the chicken coop, the summer kitchen with all the property.
I just had to agree to the builder's terms and conditions. We packed up urgently in fear and haste as there were six underage children in the house! They were crying and didn't understand what was happening! Calling for help!
Neighbours, BfE, police gathered and everything happened in a blink of an eye! And we were helpless!
It was starting to rain and the house was already roofless. We were forced to accept the builder's terms and conditions. And after literally an hour and a half of rapid packing, we vacated the house. Most of our belongings and 2 dogs went to the dacha my husband was building.
The house was demolished before our eyes! I lived in that house for 40 years! It is our ancestral home which is priceless to us to this day! No expertise of Suleymanova (assessment by the Centre of Forensic Expertise of H. Suleymanova under the Ministry of Justice of Uzbekistan) will ever assess the high value of this house for our family!
Later, the bailiff demanded that I write a receipt stating that I had no claims against them. I was so tired and depressed, and I signed it.
We have now moved into our daughter's flat.
The process lasted from 27.03.2018 to 03.04.2023
Sorry, Home, for not keeping you safe, we defended you as best we could and believed in the Uzbek Law and Constitution".
The next day, on 4 April, the city administrative court considered Olga's application for a suspension of forced eviction due to a new trial. She submitted the application on 27.03.2023, and under Article 116 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court was obliged to grant a stay. : Article 116. Obligation of the court to suspend proceedings The court shall be obliged to suspend proceedings in cases of (4) the impossibility of hearing the case in question until a decision has been taken on another case or matter before the Constitutional Court, a civil court, a criminal court, an administrative court or an economic court, or on which an investigation is pending.
So, there are non finished process, but eviction has been yet completed.
As for reimbursement, the evictor being under pression of the neighbors and activists has agreed to give more than she initially offered.
Note: The court decisions and any case files that may contain sensitive information are available upon request.
Involved in event
Companies tied to linked event
Allegations of coercion
- Destruction or damage to real property
- Disruption of utilities such as water, gas, electricity
- Harassment such as regular unwanted phone calls, correspondence or visits
- Public slander or intimidation in the media, social media, or other cognate forums
Compensation to victim
- Inadequate compensation offered
Video
Loading
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IslH276Z1w
Supporting files
Designed and developed by
- Involved in event
- Companies tied to linked event
- Land tenure
- Life-long inheritable possession
- Permanent usage
- Real property title
- Private ownership
- [TO BE REMOVED] Due process indicators
- Six months notice given: No
- Access to administrative remedy: No
- Consultation with stakeholders: No consultation
- Access to information granted: Partial
- Access to legal remedy: Partial
- Compensation
- Inadequate compensation offered
- Allegations of coercion
- Destruction or damage to real property
- Disruption of utilities such as water, gas, electricity
- Harassment such as regular unwanted phone calls, correspondence or visits
- Public slander or intimidation in the media, social media, or other cognate forums
- [TO BE REMOVED] Legal proceedings
- If yes, was the victim successful or unsuccessful in the ultimate appeal hearing? : Case ongoing
- Was the appeal ultimately successful?: Case ongoing
- Did victim initiate litigation?: No
- Was the decision appealed?: Yes
- Did the court of first instance grant the request for eviction?: Yes
- Where the court of first instance granted the eviction order, did the victim appeal?: Yes
- Was legal proceedings initiated against the victim to evict them from the property?: Yes
- [TO BE REMOVED] Equal protection of the law
- Did the victim have access to the financial resources they required for the legal proceedings?: No
- Did the victim represent themselves at legal proceedings?: On some occasions
- Did the victim have access to the legal representation they needed during the legal proceeding?: Yes
- Did the victim have to pay for legal representation?: Yes
- Did the victim have access to the information they needed during the legal proceedings?: Yes
- Summary
Olga Abdullaeva, born 1960, paediatrician by profession, retired, has lived in her house for 40 years. She inherited this house in 2014 after her husband died. She lives with her daughter, son-in-law and three small grandchildren (youngest born in 2021). Her plot of land is 350 sq.m. including the house of 100 sq meters.
The land plot and the house located at the address: 15a, S. Azimov Street, Yashnabad district, Tashkent belong to Olga on the basis of the following documents: • Certificate of ownership TS №0056207 dated 24.10.2014; • Certificate of the right to use the land plot TS №0011906 dated 24.10.2014; and • cadastral documents dated 24.10.2014.
This plot was given by the Tashkent city administration to Olga’s family in 1928. Since 2019, she has been trying to assert her right to the private property. (01), (02), (21)
Chronology:
"On May 25, 2018, some people came to our house with the words: 'Your house is under demolition!' but literally within a minute they apologized, because according to the documents we were not in their plan!", says Valeria Kuznetsova, Olga Abdullayeva's daughter (01).
The claim that Olga Abdullaeva's house was not in the plan of demolition, is also attested to by letters from the SUE ToshkentboshplanLITI (Tashkent Master Plan Institute.) and the Main Construction Department of Tashkent. It appears, therefore, on the basis of the land plot boundary plan within the Hokim decision, the land plot on which Olga's house is located was not allocated to "Training Project" LLC (23) (15)
According to the then valid article 4 of the PCM № 97 of May 29, 2006 "On the order of compensation to citizens and legal entities in connection with the withdrawal of land for state and public needs," the Khokimiyat of the Yashnabad region had to notify the property owners of the demolition in writing and against signature 6 months in advance, but this residents claim was not done.
On the 13th of March 2019, the developer initiated legal action against Olga Abdullaeva to evict her and rehouse her in a proper acquired by the developer, which Olga Abdullaeva is not happy with.
On the 20th of April 2019, the first hearing began in the Mirabad inter-district court for civil cases in Tashkent. The judge was Ms. M.Zakirova. At the trial there was a map with the already finished plot. Included within the map was the house of Abdullaeva and the neighbouring house. On this basis, the developer was able to evict Olga's neighbour through the courts. Ms Abdullaeva claims, however, this map was altered.
Despite this alleged alteration, the Mirabad inter-district civil court judge M. Zakirova is alleged to have said: "I have no grounds for eviction, but I will evict you!" (01), (02)
On the 11th of October 2019, the court ruled to deprive Olga Abdullaeva of her title to her home and to move her to a house chosen by the developer . The judge Zakirova was guided by the Articles 733, 109 of the Uzbek Civil Code, Article 71 of the Housing Code, Articles 249-253 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (04) (24)
An appeal was lodged by Olga Abdullayeva. Appeal board of the Tashkent city civil court (second instance) (05), Case n°3-17/20, features Juges Salakhutdinov D.N., Mirzaalimova G.M., Khakimova N. J. passed a decision on 13 March, 2020.
The Appeal board upheld the first-instance decision. The decision was grounded in DCM 97, May 29, 2006, articles 6, 8, & 14 about types and modes of compensation (24). The court ordered a valuation of Ms Abdullayeva's property through the Suleymanova Institute of Forensic Expertise. Olga Abdullayeva refused to let the experts in on the alleged grounds that they were not licensed to carry out appraisal activities (which is required by the Law on Appraisal Activities : (25))
The experts assessed Olga Abdullayeva's property, comparing it with the house next door, at UZS 365357066, the right to use the plot at UZS 704262231. Total value was estimated to be 1069619297 soums. The house, which the developer has offered Olga Abdullayeva is 5 rooms, 54 sqm, in total it has an area of 94.4 sqm. , a plot of 390 sq.m., which was valued by a private valuer at 840866840 soums.
Having found that the value of the houses to be demolished and the houses to be provided were of equal value, the court of first instance had concluded that the claim for eviction with compensation should be granted. The appeal court agreed with the above-mentioned decision of the court of first instance and considered it necessary to leave it unchanged, but with an addition to recover the difference in value, on the following grounds: DCM 97 , May 29, 2006 , §§ 8, 6 & 14, Art. 396 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 27. Housing Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan (24) (05).
The court ordered the developer to provide the difference between the value of the houses to be demolished and those to be provided in the amount of 269 million soums in favour of Abdullayeva. Regarding the fact that Abdullayeva's house was not originally included in the demolition scheme, the Head of the Yashnabad District Construction Department (GUAS) Mullajanov N.G. was interviewed. He explained that the construction plan shows the boundaries and points of the land plot allocated for construction to the developer. Abdullayeva's house is located between points 8 to 15 of the project. Therefore, Abdullayeva's argument that her house was outside the plot was unfounded, it was claimed. The court discussed Abdullayeva's arguments that the house she was given as compensation by the developer was actually within the demolition zone. A representative of the Main Department of Architecture and Construction of Tashkent responded that the house was in the demolition zone, but that the government had not yet made a decision on demolition. The court upheld the decision of the first instance and did not satisfy the defendant's complaint. (05)
In March 2020, the government of Uzbekistan declared a quarantine in connection with the coronavirus pandemic, causing the courts to suspend trials as well as the execution of court sentences (26).
However, on Friday, 4 September 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic did not stop officers of the Enforcement Bureau from forcibly removing belongings of the Abdullaeva's family from the house. The bailiffs threatened to kill the dog (06).
Only thanks to the Khokim of the Yashnabad district was Olga Abdullaeva able to stop the eviction and delay the "execution of the law" for a week. "Unfortunately, no matter how hard we tried to speed up the process of suspending the decision and drawing the attention of the Supreme Court to our problem, we were not heard. Our application is still pending. And tomorrow, on 11 September, they will come to break down our doors and forcibly evict us from our own home," says Valeria Kuznetsova - daughter of Olga Abdullaeva.
Fortunately, Olga managed to get a stay of execution of the court decision on the eviction before the Supreme Court (27).
Olga Abdullaeva complained to various public authorities about the verdict of the court, but she received no response. She then filed a complaint with the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing Balakrishnan Rajagopal. On the 15th of December, the Special Rapporteur wrote to the Uzbek Minister of Foreign Affairs A. Komilov asking the assistance of the Uzbekistani government (08).
Olga Abdullaeva also obtained assistance from the Ombudsman under the Uzbek Parliament Oliy Majlis, M. Ulugbek Mukhamadiev. He wrote a letter to the president of the Supreme Court K. Komilov where he described situation of Olga and the inconsistency of the lower courts' decisions with the Uzbek Law (14). The Ombudsman wrote: "The house provided does not meet the established legal requirements, namely unequal value, lack of choice, and the house is in a prospective demolition zone.
According to Article 7 of the Law of the RUz "On Protection of Private Property and Guarantees of Owners' Rights", the principle of priority of the owner's rights applies in the owner's relations with the state bodies, in accordance with which all irremovable contradictions and ambiguities of legislation arising in connection with the exercise of private property rights are interpreted in favour of the owner".
The Ombudsman also considers that the Hokim's decision did not follow the required procedure for approval by the Council of People's Deputies. That is, Khokim Decision No. 488 was not approved by the Council of People's Deputies, which contravenes article 10 of the Law on Local Authorities.
The provisions of the law concerning the seizure of land for state and public needs have been improperly applied according to the Ombudsman, as the construction of commercial housing is not included in the strictly limited list of these needs.
Finally, the Ombudsman also noted inappropriate application of law. The first-instance court applied Article 71 of the Housing Code, which describes eviction from municipal housing on the basis of public needs (14). That code should not been applied to this case, which did not involve municipal housing.
At the end of October 2020, Olga Abdullaeva received by post the decision of the Supreme Court no. 12-1379-20 of 15 October 2020. The decision stated that there were no grounds for supervisory review. Olga's application was considered by Judge Sh.R. Abbasov. In other words, the supervisory instance of the Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts (09).
Olga lodged a cassation appeal against this supervisory review decision of the Supreme Court. On 29 December, 2020, a panel of judges: Mirzaeva G., Islamova B. and Eshmuratova H. made a determination in case no. 6-1145-20.
The Judicial Board found that the Court did not take measures to eliminate contradictions between the site boundary plans submitted by the plaintiff and the defendant. The board found it should have sought the primary documents that were the basis for the Khokim's decision No. 488 of 27.03.2018 to establish the actual location of Olga Abdullaeva's house within or outside the boundaries of the plot allocated to Training Project LLC.
The courts should also have sought the records of the land allocation to establish whether Olga's house was among the properties. It has come to light that no khokim decision was issued to amend the original documents, so the changes are illegal. A visit to the site showed that Olga's house was outside the boundary of the plot allocated to Training Project Ltd, and there was no khokim's decision to amend the topographical map or to allocate additional land.
The courts failed to identify in detail the circumstances relevant to the proper resolution of the dispute. The conclusions of the courts did not correspond to the facts of the case. These circumstances require additional verification, investigation and assessment.
The courts did not engage the Tashkent Khokimiyat to clarify the above-mentioned circumstances and establish the truth regarding the documents that formed the basis for Khokim Decision No. 488, in particular the plan of boundaries of the allotted plot.
The court decided to overturn the decisions of the two lower instances and to remit the case for a new examination by the first-instance court. (29).
A new hearing of Olga's case at the district court began during February 2021, in the Mirabad inter-district court for civil cases, presided over by judge Khazratkulov O.T. (case No. 2-1002-2103/905)
The following is a summary of the Mirabad judgment delivered on 7 May, 2021 (17).
Olga's main argument against the demolition of her house had been that her house was not originally included in the site demolition plan (15). A representative of the Main Department of Architecture and Construction of Tashkent City stated that after the Khokim had issued a decision, a map of the plot had been prepared. During its production, shortcomings were detected and the borders of the plot were corrected. It is considered to be a mistake that the land plot erroneously included the roadway of the street. Making the correction is within the authority of the GUAS and does not require an additional decision. A representative of the Khokimiyat confirmed GUAS's words. However, according to the court's decision, the aforementioned experts did not cite the law governing land allocation and demolition adjustments (17).
The representative of the Ministry of Justice explained that under Article 53 of the Constitution, property rights are inviolable and protected by law. According to the Law "On Protection of Private Property and Guarantees of Owners' Rights", the owner's rights prevail in interrelations with state bodies. Therefore, all irremovable contradictions and ambiguities of the legislation are interpreted in favour of the owner (17).
The court however noted as a civil court it could not adjudicate on the Khokimiyat decree. It alos rejected the defendant's argument that the property lay outside the demolition plan.
Appeal board of the Tashkent City court for civil cases ( Ishankulova S.U. (president), Saidmuratova B.B. and Ziganshina G.R. (judges) ) heard the appeal of Olga during the process on the case N°3-1407/21. In its Decision of the of 0ctober 12, 2021, the appeal board upheld the decisions of the first-instance courts (18).
The decision of the Cassation board of the Supreme Court (Boltakhodjaeva I.A. (president), Khakimova Kh.T. and Eshmuratov Kh.A. (judges)) of February 17, 2022, N°6-3300-22, also upheld the decisions of the low instances. Olga should be evicted. (19).
On the basis of the Ruling of the Constitutional Court of 31.05.2022 that the articles applied by the courts for forced eviction do not comply with the Constitution.
On this basis Abdullayeva applied to the district court with a request to reconsider her case on newly discovered circumstances. However, by a decision of 29.06.2022 , the district court refused to consider the case. Subsequent instances also refused to consider the case (the Appeals Board - decision of 16.08.2022, the Supreme Court - decision of 14.11.2022).
And all the judges of the above mentioned courts didn't give Abdullayeva the right of attorney protection, the refusal was grounded by the developer's reluctance. Also, due to the reluctance of the builder, the courts refused Abdullayeva the right to make an audio recording even when she came to the meeting with an injured hand.
On June 29, 2022 a Law № 781 "On the procedure for withdrawal of land for public use with compensation," prohibiting a misinterpretation of the concept of "public needs," which again does not include the construction of commercial housing. However, the previous legislation did not consider commercial construction as public needs. According to Article 39 of the Law No. 781 , if prior to the enactment of this Law the procedures for the seizure of land plots were initiated, but the decision to seize the land plot was not taken in accordance with the procedure stipulated by Part one of Article 37 of the Land Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan, the land plot is subject to the procedures laid down in this Law. On the basis of this provision, Abdullaeva complained to the district court, but the latter by a decision dated 05.01.2023 refused to consider my complaint based on the adopted, where it is obliged to start examination from the beginning. Appeal instance decision 10.03.2023 also refused, without explaining the reasons. A cassation instance is yet to come.
On April 5, Abdullayeva's complaint about the illegal actions of Cadastral Service employees (Annex 1) is scheduled for consideration in the administrative court of Tashkent city. The Tashkent City Prosecutor's Office by its letter No. 10.2/4-90006/23 dated March 2022 informs that it initiated a criminal case against the officials of the Main Construction Department of Tashkent city. (Annex 2).
Eviction took place April 4,2023 (33, 34)
However, despite the fact that Abdullayeva's case is not yet finalized in the courts, the Bureau of forced execution of court decisions under the Prosecutor's Office notified her about the eviction procedure envisaged for April 3, 2022 at 10.00 a.m. (Annex 3). Besides, Olga received the letter about eviction on Saturday, April 1, i.e. when the state services do not work. Though by the rules for eviction she must be given a sufficient period of time, not less than 15 days.
Olga's narrative how the eviction took place. Me personnaly, I was the morning at home of Olga, but nothing happened. When the eviction had begun, other activists and bloggers came to observe the process.
«The eviction was scheduled for 3 April 2023 at 10:00. However, only the ambulance arrived in the morning and left half an hour later. We were told that they had received a call from the management saying that there would be no eviction.
However, at about 13:00 pm workers of the developer and the firm's director her-self, Aziza Popova, began arriving at the house.
No representatives of the authorities were present at first. Nobody asked me in the name of the Republic of Uzbekistan to open the door, nobody read out the order, nobody said that I was a debtor, nobody said that Training Project Ltd. is the owner of my house, and therefore a recoveror.
Staff, who said they were from Bureau for Enforcement of the Court decisions, appeared after the builder, but were passive and only watched, afraid to raise their eyes at me. The BfE representative asked me to go home and close the door, which we did. I did not see the ambulance (it is necessary for the procedure of the forced eviction), but Aziza said it was somewhere in the distance. I saw nothing other than a bulldozer in the yard of the house, plus my grand-children were crying.
Workers had dismantled the roof of the house, demolished part of the house and put a bulldozer - an excavator - in the yard. It was the builder who with his bulldozer broke the back of the house: the fence, the workshop, the shed, the dog aviary, the chicken coop, the summer kitchen with all the property.
I just had to agree to the builder's terms and conditions. We packed up urgently in fear and haste as there were six underage children in the house! They were crying and didn't understand what was happening! Calling for help!
Neighbours, BfE, police gathered and everything happened in a blink of an eye! And we were helpless!
It was starting to rain and the house was already roofless. We were forced to accept the builder's terms and conditions. And after literally an hour and a half of rapid packing, we vacated the house. Most of our belongings and 2 dogs went to the dacha my husband was building.
The house was demolished before our eyes! I lived in that house for 40 years! It is our ancestral home which is priceless to us to this day! No expertise of Suleymanova (assessment by the Centre of Forensic Expertise of H. Suleymanova under the Ministry of Justice of Uzbekistan) will ever assess the high value of this house for our family!
Later, the bailiff demanded that I write a receipt stating that I had no claims against them. I was so tired and depressed, and I signed it.
We have now moved into our daughter's flat.
The process lasted from 27.03.2018 to 03.04.2023
Sorry, Home, for not keeping you safe, we defended you as best we could and believed in the Uzbek Law and Constitution".
The next day, on 4 April, the city administrative court considered Olga's application for a suspension of forced eviction due to a new trial. She submitted the application on 27.03.2023, and under Article 116 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court was obliged to grant a stay. : Article 116. Obligation of the court to suspend proceedings The court shall be obliged to suspend proceedings in cases of (4) the impossibility of hearing the case in question until a decision has been taken on another case or matter before the Constitutional Court, a civil court, a criminal court, an administrative court or an economic court, or on which an investigation is pending.
So, there are non finished process, but eviction has been yet completed.
As for reimbursement, the evictor being under pression of the neighbors and activists has agreed to give more than she initially offered.
Note: The court decisions and any case files that may contain sensitive information are available upon request.
- Video evidence
- Loading
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IslH276Z1w
Supporting files
sorted by
Date added
2 relationships, 1 entities