Oltintepa
- Linked to victim
- Linked to developer
- Incident Type
- Forced eviction
- Private property development
- Property demolition
- Summary
Decision No. 225 of the Tashkent City Khokim, dated 19 December 2019, allocated BB Stroy LLC a 0.925-hectare plot of land on Oltintepa Street in Tashkent (1). The decision to award the land to B-B Stroy LLC is based on Protocol N°2 from the 21 January 2019 Meeting of the Working Group for the Implementation of an Experiment to Improve the Investment Climate in Tashkent City (2), which was set up by Decree of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan, No. DP-5511 (15 August 2018) (3).
Decision No. 225 sanctioned the construction of multi-story residential buildings, with two parking levels, and a playground for children. As well, 5 per cent of the new flats would be social housing (1). 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 (4). In total, there were 64 private flats and one state post office on the land plot (2).
According to an AsiaTerra news report (19 January 2021), at the beginning of the summer of 2019, BB Stroy LLC demolished several houses, started digging a pit close to other (still inhabited) houses and heavy construction equipment was brought close to occupied houses (4).
The news report states that in response to these actions, neighbourhood residents contacted the relevant Khokimiyat departments to complain (the Main Department of Internal Affairs, the Ministry of Emergency Situations, the Ministry of Construction and other agencies for construction control) but these organisations failed to suspend the construction (4).
According to the report, one resident, Mavzhuda Mamatkassmova, displayed a banner from the window of her residence upon which was written: "BB-Stroy, settle people first, then build. People live here" and "BB-Stroy, building on people's blood and tears" (4) (5). The report states that the banner was removed by Deputy Khokim of the Mirzo-Ulugbek district Abdulaziz Abdulkhakov and GOM-3 (the city police department). Then BB Stroy LLC sued the resident for defamation and for damaging their reputation, resulting in the permanent removal of the banner by court order (4).
The AsiaTerra news report states that in September 2019, BB Story LLC filed an application with the Mirzo-Ulugbek Inter-District Civil Court for the forced eviction of the remaining residents (4). It also states that in response, residents sued the developer for violation of urban planning regulations, none of which were successful (4). It further states that in the course of these court proceedings, nine families settled with BB Story LLC, and vacated their apartments. The other eight families agreed to the move, but the developer did not want to meet their demands, considering them excessive (4). These eight families have not been resettled and live in two of the remaining houses. Notwithstanding this, construction of the new building continues (4).
After eviction of Mavjuda Mamatkassymova, Zoya Meshalkina and Madina Khasanova, their house was destroyed.
- Alleged Legal or Regulatory Violations
- Anti-money laundering
- Building and construction
- Compensation
- Environmental
- Good governance
- Information and consultation
- Physical planning
- Property law
- Date added
- Apr 4, 2022
Tashkent City (Olmazor)
- Linked to victim
- Incident Type
- Forced eviction
- Private property development
- Property demolition
- Summary
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.)
- Image of Property
- Human Rights Concerns
- Right to compensation for deprivation of property
- Right to equal protection of the law and to judicial remedy
- Right to information
- Right to livelihood and land
- Right to peaceful enjoyment of property
- Alleged Legal or Regulatory Violations
- Anti-money laundering
- Compensation
- Due process
- Good governance
- Information and consultation
- Property law
- Date added
- Mar 30, 2022
Navoishokh street
- Linked to victim
- Incident Type
- Forced eviction
- Private property development
- Property demolition
- Summary
Decision No. 1510 (15 August 2017) of the Samarkand City Hokim, Vokhid Rahimov, ordered the demolition of four neighbouring two-storey houses on Navoishokh Street, Samarkand (numbers 43, 45, 47 and 49) (1). The decision states that the properties do not meet urban planning requirements, and permits Samarkand Agro Export Service LLC to relocate the existing buildings, and to construct multi-storey residential buildings on the land (ibid.) The company extract for Samarkand Agro Export Service, when checked on 4 May 2020, reveals that the sole shareholder is Martirosov Artyom Arturovich (5).
On 7 October 2017, Decision No. 10/2850 of the Samarkand Regional Prosecutor’s Office recommended that Decision 1510 be annulled (2). This recommendation is based on the fact that the prosecutor’s office found the decision to be in violation of the constitutional rights of the residents (ibid.) For example, the prosecutor’s office found that the property rights of 25 residents were violated in that these residents did not provide their written consent, despite the claims of Decision No. 1510 (ibid.) On 14 October 2017, the new Hokim, Furkat Rahimov, issued Decision No. 1755-K which annulled Decision No. 1510 (3).
On 5 January 2018, a company called Silk Voyage LLC was registered (4).The managing director of the company is Artyom Martirosov (4). As per the company extract, checked on 25 June 2022, the largest shareholder of Silk Voyage LLC is Anna Martirosova who has a 70% shareholding in the company (4). On 6 July 2018, the acting Hokim of Samarkand, Talant Esirgapov, issued Decision No. 1217-K (7) which amended the wording of Decision No. 1510 to remove the words “Samarkand Agro Export Service”, and replace them with “Silk Voyage LLC”.
The design of the multi-storey residential buildings proposed by Silk Voyage LLC was also permitted in two different formats. Decision No. 1510 (15 August 2017) approves the construction of a four-storey building (1). The 22 May 2018 protocol of the Construction Directorate of Samarkand approves the construction of a seven-storey building (8).
The resident of one property, 49 Navoishokh Street, alleges that there was a robbery at her property which was not properly investigated by police (9). On 21 January 2020 the residents of this property were evicted from their homes (10), before the property was destroyed in the following months (11).
- Image of Property
- Human Rights Concerns
- Right to compensation for deprivation of property
- Right to equal protection of the law and to judicial remedy
- Right to information
- Right to participate in public life
- Right to peaceful enjoyment of property
- Alleged Legal or Regulatory Violations
- Compensation
- Information and consultation
- Property law
- Date added
- Mar 17, 2022
3 shown of 3 entities