LAND HOME JUSTICE

Introduction:

The Government announced in a 2017 presidential decree the expansion of the Tashkent metro (78). The decree gives the mayor of Tashkent responsibility for demolishing buildings, releasing land and compensating the affected individuals and organisations. The metro line expansion would include the provision of new track through the city’s eastern district of Yashnabad. This has led to the acquisition of a factory premise belonging to Altromark LLC. Altromark LLC is a US owned company, involved in the production of wheelchairs. The property was demolished in August 2021.

Notice:

The first recorded form of notice of the land confiscation and demolition was provided by Toshkent Shahar Hokimligi - Binolardan Foydalanish Departamenti on 26 February 2018 in a letter signed by R.G. Xakimdjonov (1). No information appears to have been attached to the letter, such as any specific decrees sanctioning the acquisition.

Consultation:

On 24 August 2018 Altromark through its General Manager requested a working group be set up to consult on the proposed metro line, and to agree adequate compensation with the company, including replacement land for their operations (4). On 26 August 2018 Toshkent Shahar Hokimligi - Binolardan Foydalanish Departmenti, responds to the letter noting the Presidential decrees under which the metro line construction takes place, and the notice letter provided to Altromark on 26 February 2018 by the Tashkent City Government (6).

On 20 September 2018 the State Committee for Investments notes Altromarks right to compensation for losses arising from the acquisition of their property for the metro line. They recommend a meeting be convened between Altromark, the Tashkent City Government, and a member of the Committee (11).

Subsequently in 2020 a meeting is convened with both the district Hokim and the city Hokim.

Information:

On 26 August 2018 Toshkent Shahar Hokimligi - Binolardan Foydalanish Departmenti, provides Altromark with information on the Presidential decrees under which the acquisition is taking place (6). These decrees relate to the metro line generally and do not document any specific decision to acquire Altromark’s property. The only source document referred to with regard to the acquisition is the notice provided by by the Tashkent City Government on 26 February 2018.

The State Committee for Assistance to Privatised Enterprises and Development of Competition in a letter dated 15 September 2018, provides reference to the relevant decrees governing compensation.

Advised on 10 January 2020 by the Commissioner for Protection of Rights and Legitimate Interests of Entrepreneurs that if Altromark is dissatisfied with the compensation they can appeal to the inter District Economic Court in the city of Tashkent (62).

Consent:

Altromark have not consented to the eviction, due to the offer of inadequate compensation.

Compensation:

On 19 December 2018, Total Estimate a valuer contracted by Altromark estimates the property's value as being 24 858 143 840.00 soum (24). It appears because Total Estimate is not on the designated list of valuers used by the authorities, this valuation was not accepted (25). It was also stated that the appraisal was done on the basis of collateral for security, rather than loss due to acquisition, and thus could not be used as the basis for an assessment (29) (30).

On 1 March 2019 the State Asset Management agency provides Altromark with a list of three appraisers, which can be used to conduct a valuation in line with current regulations (25).

On 5 April 2019 Altromark contact Hisob Va Biznes Baholash, a valuer provided by the State Asset Management Agency (31).

On 12 April 2019 Altromark advise the Director General of the Center for Municipal Asset Management, Hokimiyat of Tashkent City, that Hisob Va Biznes Baholash has been contracted (32).

On 23 April 2019 an assessment report was submitted to the Hokimiyat of Tashkent City. The appraisers recommend compensation of 21,039,280,000, in addition they recommend providing a new land plot, 132,000,000 UZS for relocation costs, and 1,910,345, 000 for business losses due to the disruption (43).

In a letter dated 24 June 2019 addressed to the Commissioner for the Protection of Rights and LEgitimate Interests of Business Entities, Altromark alleges there has been no progress in finalising compensation (43).

Altromark alleges after submission of the valuation, the report was doctored by a Hokimiyat official to change the proposed compensation to 18,019,516,447 UZS (72).

At a meeting on 21 November 2019 between Altromark and the Yashnabad district head, the latter stated that the compensation issue will be resolved and that Altromark will be given land on which to set up a new factory. According to Altromark, the Mayor of Tashkent allegedly confirmed this in a meeting later that day, and once more in a telephone call.

In what the company says contravenes the agreement reached on 21 November, Artykhodjaev then issued a decree capping compensation at 18 billion soum ($1.75 million). The mayor also refused to provide Altromark with an alternative site for its factory.

The transfer of 18,019,516,447 UZS was made on 26 November 2019.

Altromark claim no agreement was made to accept this amount. They contend that fair compensation would include 2,994,957 USD for loss of their production facilities, 1,655,000 USD for loss of revenue, and a land plot 3 hectares in size to build a new premise (72).

In 2020 the Hokimiyat of Tashlent alleges it has overpaid Altromark LLC, claiming the real value of the loss to be 16,678,971,768 UZS.

According to Altromark the Tashkent Mayor's Office offered an abandoned site on the outskirts of the Tashkent region, which the company has refused to accept as it is not commensurate with their previous land plot (79).

Redress:

Appeal made by Altromark LLC to the State Committee for Assistance to Privatised Enterprises and Development of Competition. The State Committee responds by setting out the companies legal rights to compensation, referencing the relevant decrees (10).

Complaint submitted to the Presidential Commission for the Protection of Rights and Legitimate Interests of Business Entities and Chairman of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, on 11 October 2018 (13).

On 23 November 2018 the Deputy Commission for Protection of Rights and Legitimate Interests of Business Entities states that the Tashkent City Government has been advised decrees governing compensation must be observed in this public acquisition exercise (16).

On 30 October 2018 the Foreign Affairs Committee advised that the Tashkent City Government had been written to and asked to consider the issue (18).

On 16 July 2019 Altromark publish an open letter to the Mayor of Tashkent, where they draw public attention to the alleged abuses and coercion they have experienced.

On 31 July 2019 Altromark appealed to the President of Uzbekistan noting that after 550 days Altromark has received no resolution (47).

A legal appeal to the court was also submitted by Altromark, which was ultimately dismissed on 5 April 2021 following appeals the Supreme Court (78).

Coercion:

Altromark allege that at an October 11,2018 meeting with Mr. M. Irmatov, the Head of the Buildings Management Department, Hokimiyat of Tashkent City, the management of Altromark LLC was told: "Your factory buildings, office building, all communications, access roads, security buildings, fencing territories fall under complete demolition and that we [Altromark] must demolish everything ourselves, otherwise we [City Authorities] will demolish it without your knowledge, and there will be no money for compensation!" (42,1).

Tashkent city authorities sent a senior delegation of officials to Altromark’s office on 4 July 2019. Security footage shows that one member of the city delegation arrived holding an axe (73). According to Sergei Aleksandrov, Altromark’s security personnel were threatened by the delegation during the visit (74).

In 2020 the Tashkent City Hokimiyat initiated legal action against Altromark in the Tashkent Interdistrict Economic Court. The Hokimiyat have presented a third report by the valuers, placing the compensation at 16,678,971,768 UZS.

During the demolition exercise, it is alleged that an Altromark manager was seriously assaulted by a Hokimiyat official, leading to their hospitalisation.

Demolition:

The Altromark LLC property was demolished in August 2021. The company alleges on 10 August, more than thirty employees of the Tashkent city administration, Bureau of Compulsory Enforcement and the Ministry of Internal Affairs arrived at the enterprise building.

Impact:

Altromark was forced to suspend its business activities in February 2018. This has led to the loss of significant revenues, and the lay off of staff. Furthermore, this factor’s closure has reduced competition and quality in the provision of mobility devices to disabled peoples in Uzbekistan.

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.

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).

An AsiaTerra news report (29 March 2021) states that Mavjuda Mamatkasymova was a resident of Oltintepa street, living with her family in her flat, which she privately owned (1).

In Decision No. 225 of the Tashkent City Khokim (19 December 2019), development company BB Stroy LLC was given permission to build multi-storey residential buildings, and to demolish the existing buildings on a 0.925 hectare plot of land on Oltintepa Street (2).

An AsiaTerra news report (28 February 2021) states that Mamatkasymova was offered compensation, which she did not accept. BB Stroy LLC then obtained a decision from the Mirzo-Ulugbek civil court to forcibly evict her family from the property (3).

The report also says that the Tashkent City Civil Appeal Court and the Judicial Board for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of Uzbekistan then upheld the decision of the Mirzo-Ulugbek Civil Court, and thus Mamatkasymova’s eviction (3).

The AsiaTerra news report (29 March 2021) report alleges that Mamatkasymova’s eviction was initially scheduled for 2 March 2021 (1). However, she filed supervisory complaint with the Chairman of the Supreme Court. As a result, the eviction was postponed for 15 days pending receipt of a stay of execution of the court decision (1). However, it is alleged that the Supreme Court did not send the appropriate instructions to the Mirzo-Ulugbek Court that they were to suspend the execution of the decision to evict Mamatkasymova. As a result, also, the Bureau of the Enforcement of Court Decisions (commonly known as "BPI"), under the Mirzo-Ulugbek District Prosecutor's Office was not notified (1).

The report says that on the morning of 16 March, Mamatkasymova explained to BPI officers that her case was still pending before the Supreme Court, and that she was in possession of a letter from the Parliamentary Ombudsman Aliya Yunusova that was addressed to [Kasan] Kabirjanov, Director of the BPI, Prosecutor General's Office that states: "at present, M. Mamatkasymova's application and the materials submitted are under examination by the Commissioner for the preparation and submission of the Commissioner's Opinion to the Supreme Court. Additionally, we would like to inform you that the appeal of Ms. M. Mamatkasymova dated 14.01.2021 was sent to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Uzbekistan for consideration on the merits. In view of the above information I ask you to consider the issue of suspension of the Mirzo-Ulugbek inter-district Court decision #2-1001-1949/52105 dated 27.09.2020 and the Appeal decision of the Tashkent City Court #3- 999/20 dated 25.12.2020 till the repeated consideration of the appeal by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Uzbekistan” (1).

According to the same report, later that day, Mamatkasymova’s flat was allegedly visited by Khudoynazarov [an MIB employee] who was accompanied by the district police officer, as well as an unidentified woman, and employees of Golden Dreamlands LLC (1). It is alleged that these individuals, without making any inventory of the property, began to remove items and break doors and windows (1). The report says that Mamatkasymova’s belongings were taken to a flat in Karasu-6, a block of flats in Tashkent allegedly owned by Golden Dreamlands LLC, which was offered as compensation (1). And that Mamatkasymova refused because of her chronic illnesses, of which she had previously informed the court (1), and due to the fact that that she had not been given any documents (1). Then, according to the report, the next day Mamatkasymova complained to the authorities about the aforementioned actions of these individuals (1). Information was also posted on social media by neighbours, relatives and friends of Mamatkasymova (1). The Supreme Court allegedly responded to emphasise the legality of the forced eviction (1). The report states that while the case was still pending in the Supreme Court Mamatkasymova’s home was demolished (1). Following a sustained two year period of psychological stress relating to the eviction and demolition, Mavjuda Mamatkasymova passed away on 28 March 2021, although no direct causative relation can be drawn between her death and the events' psychological impacts (1).

Background

On 26 April 2017, Absolute Business Trade LLC, a subsidiary of Golden House Development (1) sent a letter to the Tashkent Khokimiyat requesting that they allocate the company a land plot for the construction of multi-story houses between the streets of Mirabad and Nukus in Tashkent (2).

On 8 August 2017, the Commission on the Study of the Practise of Granting Land Plots in Tashkent issues decision no. 122, which allocates the land plot to the developer, and, subject to the demolition of the buildings on the site and compensation to their owners, allows the company to build the residential and non-residential multistorey buildings (2).

On 9 September 2017, decision no. 1218 was then issued by the Tashkent City Khokim, R. Usmanov, leasing a 6-hectare plot of land between Mirabad and Nukus streets in Tashkent to Absolute Business Trade LLC (2). The land was allocated to the company for permanent use, and for construction of multi-story residential and commercial buildings subject to demolition of existing buildings and compensation for damage (2).

One of the buildings on Mirabad Avenue (no. 7) was owned by Dilmurod Mirusmanov (3). This house is inhabited by four related families (incl. Dilmurod’s own) and had a total of 15 people living in it, 9 of which were children (4). Dimurod says the children in the house go to school close to Mirabad avenue (information that was provided informally to project researchers).

According to information provided informally to project researchers by Dilmurod (and then published on the Housing News website – 28 July 2022), he alleges that he was offered inadequate compensation for the demolition of his home (5). Dilmurod claims that the flats offered to Mirusmanov were too far from the children’s’ school, that they were too small, and inadequate for the number of occupants (ibid.).

The following excerpt from the Housing News article details a statement Dilmurod gave on the compensation they were offered: "According to the social norm of 16 square metres per person we have to live in 240 square metres, but the builder gives us 135 square metres, which is half as much. That's two two-bedroom flats of 67 sq.m. each. How can we talk about improving our living conditions when in fact our conditions are worsening? Even if we theoretically assume that 2 sisters with their 5 children could live in one two-bedroom flat. Then the second flat would have to give a separate room to my mother, a separate room to my brother and leave another room, me with my wife and 4 children, in which we would not fit in any way. I'm sorry, purely by the number of toilets, I have 5 toilets at home with a bath or shower. But their flats have one toilet in each flat and how are 15 people supposed to live there?" (5) (translated by project researchers).

According to Dilmurod, he requested a residence on Mirabad Avenue of comparable size to his (300 square meters) but Absolute Business Trade LLC refused (5).

Civil Court

On an unknown date, Absolute Business Trade LLC filed a claim against Dilmurod Mirusmanov with the Yakkasaroy District Tashkent City Civil Court (case no. 2-1005-2104/4345) (3). Absolute Business Trade LLC asks the court to evict the defendants, subject to the provision of alternative accommodation (ibid.). Two flats were offered as alternative accommodation (address ##15&35, 11, Mukimi str., 1 pass of the Mukimi str., Yakkasaroy district, Tashkent) that were a total of 67.58 m2, and 67.45 m2 which was refused by Dilmurod (ibid.) The court documents also note that the defendants were unable to attend one of the court sessions (3) (Dilmurod claims he had COVID-19 and notified the court of this (7)). It is also noted in the document that an independent assessment on adequate compensation for the residence was not carried out (7). On 6 August 2021, Judge Sh. R. Muminiv decides to uphold Absolute Business Trade LLC’s claim, evicting Dilmurod and his family (3). The judge also ordered the developer to pay additional monetary compensation of roughly 1 billion UZS, and imposed a court fee of approximately 500,000 UZS on Absolute Business Trade LLC (ibid.) The legal basis for this decision is cited as: article 5 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan, articles 27 and 71 of the Housing Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan and articles 41 and 42 of the Cabinet of Ministers Decree no. 911 (ibid.)

Appeal

On an unknown date Dilmurod Mirusmonov appealed the decision of the Taskent City Civil Court (case no. 2014/21) (6). This appeal board consisted of President of the Board D. N. Salakhutdinov, and Judges G. M. Mirzaalimova, and G. I. Abdurakhmanov (ibid.) Mirusmonov requested to be defended by a representative of an NGO, which is permitted by article 67 of the Civil Procedures Code "Contractual (voluntary) representation”, a request that was denied (ibid.) On 19 April 2022, the appeal board issued a decision on the case, upholding the previous ruling (ibid.) Mirusmonov, as the losing party in the case, was ordered to pay 9 million UZS, or 4 per cent of the stated value of his property (ibid.)

Supreme court

On an unknown date Dilmurod Mirusmonov appealed to the Supreme Court to overturn the decisions of the Tashkent City Civil Court (8). Mirusmanov claims that he was not offered suitable compensation given the size of the residences offered (ibid.). On 29 July 2022, a decision was issued by the Cassation Board of the Supreme Court (case no. 6-1885-22) (board members were president – G. Mirzaeva (president), and Judges – H. Hakimova and M. Rabieva), upholding the previous two court decisions but raised the monetary compensation offered to 2 billion UZS (9). The legal basis for their decision is cited as: decision no. 12 of the Plenum of the Supreme Court (24 May 2019), articles 3, 4, 27 and 71 of the Housing Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan, and Cabinet of Ministers Decree no. 911 (ibid.)

Outcome

Dilmurod has informed the researchers informally that the legal proceedings are still ongoing.

The court decisions on the case are available upon request.

Farida Langer Musayevna was interviewed by project researchers on 24 April 2022 (1). Langer lives in the Yunusabad district on Niyozbek Yuli Street,Tashkent in a residential property that she owns (ibid.) Decision No.1544 of Tashkent City Hokim dated 21 November 2017, allocates Steel Quality Business LLC a land plot for the construction of multi-storey buildings on the territory of Yunus-Abad and Mirzo-Ulugbek districts of Tashkent, including Niyozbek Yuli Street (2). The decision provides for the demolition of residential buildings and non-residential premises located on this territory, with the provision of compensation to the owners (ibid.)

Langer claims that in December 2018 she was offered compensation by Steel Quality Business LLC that she found to be insufficient (1). A letter dated 22 December 2020 was sent to Langer by Steel Quality Business offering her compensation (3). The letter claims that the total area of Langer’s home was 53.62 square feet, and on that basis offers her the possibility of the acquisition of another equivalent well-equipped residential premises of her choice at the expense of Steel Quality Business LLC; the payment of monetary compensation in the amount of USD 40,000, or the provision of an apartment in a new development with a total usable area equivalent to the demolished apartment and payment for temporary housing until completion of construction (ibid.)

Langer explains that she found the compensation to be insufficient because she claims that the total area of her house is 93 square feet (1). She also says that she lives with her grandchildren who attend a school nearby to her Niyozbek Yuli property and thus would need adequate space for her family (ibid.) She claims that Steel Quality Business offered her an apartment on the 13th floor of a building, but she is elderly and does not want to live on a higher floor than her current residence (ibid.) Langer alleges that she asked Steel Quality Business to provide her with a first-floor apartment in a building being built near to her Niyozbek Yuli residence which was refused by the company (ibid.) She asserts that a realtor named Rustam was hired by Steel Quality Business to intimidate her, and visited her house several times, saying that if she did not agree to the offered compensation, she would be forcibly evicted from her home (ibid.) Langer states that during this time her health deteriorated (ibid.)

Excerpts from Langer’s interview can be found here: “I was taken to court. How nervous. My leg hurts, and sometimes my blood pressure goes up. I am not young, I am 66 years old. I didn't ask them much. I asked them to compensate me for the total area of my house. My grandson has been attending schools here since 1st grade. Now he is in 7th grade. So I asked them to give me a one-bedroom apartment and my children a two-bedroom apartment. I didn't ask them anything stupid. The construction company took me to court. We need to find out who a guy named Rustam is. He has no rights or documents at all. He's trying to get me out of the house. The LLC wants to give me an apartment on the 13th floor from another district. I explained to them humanely: ‘I don’t need a house elsewhere. Give me an apartment on the first floor here. Understand me, I was born here, I grew up here and I want to spend the rest of my life here.’ Eventually, the builder sued me. Employees of the Republican Forensic Expertise Center named after H. Sulaymonova came to me to assess the cost of my house. Everything was agreed with them. The builder brought the employees in his car. The judge and his assistants came together. They valued my house at [USD] 15,000. But when the judge saw the condition of my house, he told me that the compensation I was asking for was real. The general condition of my house is very good. The judge then told me that I could live in my own house. But the case is not closed yet" (ibid.) (translated by project researchers).

On 10 March 2021, a statement of claim (case no. 2-1001-2104/6284) was filed by Steel Quality Business with the Mirzo Ulugbek Inter-District Civil Court that aimed to terminate Farida Langer’s ownership of her property (4). On 22 April 2021, Mirzo Ulug'bek Inter-District Court Judge D. Dadajanova ruled that an independent expert evaluate Langer's property and provide the court with a sound evaluation (5). Langer subsequently accepted the compensation, vacated her premises and the case against her was withdrawn on 25 August (10).

Note: The court decisions and any case files that may contain sensitive information are available upon request.

On 28 July 2017, the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Uzbekistan issued a Decree (No. 559) entitled “On measures to improve the architectural appearance and improvement of the central part of Tashkent, as well as creation of appropriate conditions for the population and visitors to the capital” (1). This decree approved the creation of an international business centre called ‘Tashkent City’, and set up a state enterprise called ‘The Directorate’ to oversee the development (1).

According to the documentary research by Dilmira Matyakubova (2018), the area chosen for the project has been a target for redevelopment since the earthquake in 1966, when some mahallas were ruined (6). She claims that after independence, an effort was made to rewrite the story of Tashkent, removing Soviet influences (ibid.) Photos held by the author show that in late December 2017, the iconic Soviet-era building Dom Kino (Cinema House) was demolished (7, 8) despite signed petitions from local architects and cinematographers citing the importance of the building (12, 12.2).

Kristian Lasslett (2019) describes the Tashkent City project as a USD 1.3 billion mega-project (2). The development was to occupy 80 hectares of land (3.1 square miles) (3) on Tashkent’s main streets: Navoi and Islam Karimov Avenues (formerly Uzbekistanskaya), which also link Olmazor and Furkat Streets (4). According to Lasslett, the development was to contain residential complexes, retail, business and financial districts, Hilton and Radisson branded hotels, a Congress Centre, and a large recreational park boasting a 7D cinema, planetarium and wax museum (2). In order to accomplish the redevelopment, traditional mahallas and heritage buildings were demolished, for instance, traditional mahallas in the Olmazor (Apple Orchard) and O’qchi (Fletcher) neighbourhoods (5).

Matyakubova (2018) argues that the process of the demolition of these neighbourhoods and properties involved serious regulatory violations (6). Article 4 of the Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers (No. 97) entitled “Regulations on the Procedure for Compensation of Damages to Citizens and Legal Entities due to Seizure of Land for State or Public Needs” (29 May 2006) states that the Hokimiyat must notify property owners in writing no less than six months before demolition begins on their property (6, 9). However, Cabinet of Ministers Decree No. 559 (28 July 2017) set the requirement that buildings were to be acquired within a month (6, 1). Further, residents allege in their interviews that, in some instances, district administration visited mahallas and informed residents that they had ten days to vacate their homes (6). Some residents allege that they remained in the area despite the dust, and despite being cut off from electricity and gas (6).

Lasslett (2019) noted that key beneficiaries of the project are companies tied to the Akfa-Artel group, a group founded by Jahongir Artikhodjayev who was Mayor of Tashkent (2018-2023) at the time of the report's publication (2). Lasslett observes: “Companies tied to the Akfa-Artel group invested in three of the eight lots making up the US $1.3 billion Tashkent City property development, using a layer of offshore companies that made determination of beneficial ownership impossible. The group is also tied to the general contractor appointed to oversee four of the eight lots ... In response to queries submitted by the author, the Mayor’s office states that Jahongir ArtiHodjayev does not have a private interest in Tashkent City” (ibid.)