LAND HOME JUSTICE

Background

On 21 November 2017, decision no.1544 of the Tashkent City Hokim allocates Steel Quality Business LLC (operating as Namuna Development) (1) a land plot for the construction of multi-storey residential buildings on the territory of Yunus-Abad and Mirzo-Ulugbek districts of Tashkent (2). In particular, the developer has been allocated plots on Niezbek Yuli, Sharofobod, Malyasova and Lashkarbegi streets (2). The developer claims they will be building Nur complex, a residential complex that will feature 30 buildings and 932 apartments along with parks, cafes, boutiques, jogging trails and barrier face recognition systems to ensure around the clock security (3). 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 (2).

Demolition

In a letter of complaint, residents allege that the process of the demolitions has involved some regulatory violations (4). For instance, residents claim that those in Yunus-Abad district were advised of the demolitions in late 2017, while those in Mirzo-Ulugbek were advised in 2019 (ibid.) They also claim there was no prior consultation with communities before the demolition decision was made (ibid.) Residents also alleged that the way that the demolition notices were given was not in line with the law, as they lacked a date of delivery, a registration number, and a seal, and that this information was not supplied in accordance with the deadlines for a demolition notice (ibid.) Residents say they have only received a copy of the Hohimiyat decree, the developer's registration certificate and a power of attorney document, whilst later a copy of the cadastre document was provided (ibid.)

Compensation

The developer claims that as per decision no. 911 they offered compensation which included either the acquisition of an equivalent residential property on the secondary market, payment of monetary compensation in the amount of USD 70,000, or provision within the new development of an equivalent property with payment for temporary housing (5).

Residents, however, claim the compensation offered is inadequate (4). They also claim residents opposing the demolition have been told by the developer they will be evicted through litigation (ibid.) A resident from the impacted community has claimed that those who have not accepted the compensation have faced harassment and intimidation (Uwazi entry – Kagramanova victim profile). One resident, Farida Langer, faced civil court action by the developer which was dropped once she agreed to vacate her home (Uwazi entry – Langer victim profile).

Alongside these core issues, residents claim that construction around their residence leads to 24-hour noise, in addition to dust, the dumping of garbage, pipe damage, environmental harm, and cracks in their properties (Uwazi entry – Yusupova victim profile). This has caused considerable additional stress to impacted residents (ibid.)

On 26 August 2022, the Ministry of Justice writes a letter voicing their opinion on the concerns raised by residents, including:

“The examination of the decision of the city governor of Tashkent dated November 21, 2017, No. 1544, revealed that this decision does not comply with the requirements of the legislation of the Republic of Uzbekistan, which renders it illegal.” “The decision does not provide for the expropriation of a land plot, and secondly, it is impossible to provide (sale) a land plot that is in possession, use, lease and ownership without its expropriation (purchase) in the prescribed manner.” “Due to the fact that the decision of the Hokim of the city of Tashkent dated November 21, 2017 No. 1544 does not provide for the withdrawal of a land plot, there are no legal grounds for negotiating related to compensation for damage caused to owners in connection with the withdrawal of a land plot for state and public needs.”(18) This is echoed by the Oliy Majlis Ombudsman on 30 November 2022 (20). This document reaffirms that resolution 1544 “contradicts certain provisions of the legislation of the Republic of Uzbekistan” and furthermore, “does not comply with the requirements of designating the land plot for auctioning” or sale (ibid.)

Legal action

On 25 October 2022, a decision was issued by the Tashkent Inter-district Administrative Court on a claim (case no. 5-1001-2210/2153) submitted by Alieva Shahzade Khakimovna who sought to overturn decision no. 1544 (19). The court ruled that decision no. 1544 is not in accordance with the Constitution of the Republic of Uzbekistan, as well as Urban Planning Codes and annulled it on that basis (ibid.)

According to a decision issued by the appellate body of the Tashkent Inter-District Administrative Court (dated 7 December 2022, case no. 2-600/22) an appeal was lodged by Steel Quality Business LLC, seeking to overturn the decision issued by the Tashkent Inter-District Administrative Court (21). The court ruled in favour of Steel Quality Business LLC, stating that Khakimovna’s ownership of her property was not substantially proven and that the statute of limitations had expired, rendering her claim invalid (ibid.) The court ruled without the presence of Khakimovna or her attorneys (ibid.) The decision on the appeal also provided for the collection of a sum from Kakimovna as well as for the developer Steel Quality Business to be refunded a sum from the state budget (ibid.)

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.

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.)

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).

Decision No. 488 of the Tashkent City Khokim (27 March 2018):

By Decision № 488, dated 27 March 2018, the then-Khokim of Tashkent, R. Usmanov, allocated 2.1 hectares of land in the centre of the city to a company called Training Project LLC (1). The plot of land is located between passages 2, 3 and 5 of Sadyk Azimov Street (1). The decision states that residential and non-residential buildings should be demolished for the construction of a multi-storey residential and commercial building, providing that Training Project LLC reimburses the owners of the existing property (1).

The decision does not require the residents to agree to the demolition of their homes, nor the compensation offered by the developer (1). It can also be argued that the decision does not describe any public purpose for the construction of the new development (1), which under the applicable law during this period was a prerequisite for compulsory acquisition.

Details of the demolished properties:

A letter published by the Cadastre Agency, Tashkent City Administration (27 January 2022) No. 13/2-3/1-388-2 states there were 84 residential buildings and 7 non-residential buildings on the land plot that was allocated to Training Project LLC (2).

Details of the proposed development:

According to a Nuz article dated 6 July 2020, Training Project LLC proposed to build a 13-storey residential block on the land plot (3). This article also states that the project designer is Asia Project Group, and the contractor is Ulkan Qurilish Maxsus Servis (3).

Residents’ response to the development:

Residents have published open letters in Uzmetronom (19 September 2019 and 12 December 2019) alleging that the land was acquired improperly (4, 5). In an article published in Anhor on 10 September 2020, residents allege that the developer failed to offer residents market price compensation or adequate alternative accommodation (6). They also allege that the developer has been pressurising residents through the use of litigation (6).

In 2019, residents of Sadyk Azimov Street filed an application to the administrative court demanding to cancel the decision of the Tashkent City Khokim #488 dated 27.03.2018.

Applicants: Georgy Tsirinsky, Regina Ananova , Olga Abdullayeva, Maria Fadeicheva, Natalya Kudryavtseva

Respondent: Hokimiyat of Tashkent city Third party, not asserting independent claims: TRAINING PROJECT LLC

The main and only argument of the applicants was that the decision contradicts the requirements of paragraph 12 of the "Regulations on the procedure for allocation of land plots in settlements for urban development activities", approved by the SCM No. 54 of 25.02.2013 (30).

In accordance with this provision, the khokim was obliged to refuse to allocate the land plot and to send TRAINING PROJECT LLC a notice of impossibility to allocate the land plot, with an offer to buy the real estate from the owners independently. (30)

Paragraph 12 of the mentioned Regulation is defined: "In cases of receipt of applications from legal entities and individuals for the provision of land plots occupied by buildings and structures, the rights to which are registered for other individuals and legal entities in an order established by legislation, the applicant is sent a notice of impossibility to provide the requested land plot, with the proposal to independently buy out the immovable property from the owners or other options for selection of free land plots".

“Thus, in violation of the current legislation, the khokim of Tashkent city allocated for commercial development a plot of land together with the houses belonging to us on the rights of private ownership, which in fact violated our legally protected rights and freedoms, namely the right to use and dispose of the plot of land on which our houses and the houses of more than 50 other owners are located” , wrote the applicants in their supervision complaint to the Supreme Court .

By the decision of the administrative court of Chilanzar district of Tashkent (1st instance) dated 23.08.2019 on the case №3-1006-1901/4581 the Applicant's claim to invalidate the decision of the Hokim of Tashkent city №488 dated 27.03.2018 was denied (SadykAzimov_Admin process 2019 - 1st instance.pdf).

The decision of the cassation instance of the Administrative Court of Tashkent #°3-1006-1902/4581 of 25.11.2019 left the decision unchanged, and the cassation appeal without satisfaction (Decision of the Administrative Court of Tashkent n ).

According to Article 158 of the Code of Administrative Proceedings "The reasoning part of the judgment shall specify: ...the grounds on which the court rejected certain evidence, accepted or rejected the arguments of persons participating in the case..." The acts of legislation which guided the court in adopting the judgment and the grounds on which the court failed to apply the acts of legislation relied upon by the persons participating in the case".(25.01.2018. Кодекс Республики Узбекистан об административном судопроизводстве (lex.uz)) However, the applicants' argument set out above was not discussed at all in the judgment of the court and in the cassation instance judgment and was not refuted by the findings that it was unreasonable or unfounded. During the court of cassation instance, the Applicants provided another argument of illegality of the decision of the Tashkent City Khokim No. 488 dated 27.03.2018: this decision was not approved by the Tashkent City Council of People's Deputies. Although in accordance with Article 10 of the Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan "On Local State Power" stipulates: "Khokim of the region, district, city has the right to provide land for possession, use and lease to enterprises, institutions, organizations, dehkan farms, citizens, terminate the rights of possession and use of land by these entities, as well as to withdraw land with subsequent approval of the adopted decisions by the relevant Kengash of People's Deputies". ( 913-XII-сон 02.09.1993. О государственной власти на местах (lex.uz) ) In accordance with Article 68 of the Code of Administrative Proceedings of the Republic of Uzbekistan: "A person participating in the case, who is unable to independently obtain the necessary evidence from a person participating or not participating in the case, who has it, has the right to apply to the court with a petition to demand this evidence. The motion shall state what circumstances relevant to the case may be established by this evidence, designate the evidence and indicate its location” In the course of consideration of the cassation appeal, the Applicants filed a request to demand from the Kengash of People's Deputies of Tashkent the original or duly certified copy of the minutes of the session of the Kengash of People's Deputies of Tashkent, which approved the decision of the Khokim of Tashkent No. 488 dated 27.03.2018. But the cassation board of the administrative court of Tashkent rejected this request. "The judge's refusal to reclaim the written evidence is unlawful," the plaintiffs argue. «Later we managed to get a letter No.129 dated 29.11.2019 from the Tashkent City Kengash of People's Deputies, which informs that the contested decision of the Tashkent City Khokim was not submitted to the Kengash of People's Deputies for approval. This is another proof that the decision of the Tashkent City Khokim No. 488 of 27.03.2018 has no legal force», - wrote the plaintiffs. (Letter of Municipal Council.pdf.) It follows from the text of the decision of the Tashkent City Khokim #488 dated 27.03.2018 that it was issued on the basis of the Protocol Decision of the Commission of the Cabinet of Ministers of RUz #01-05/121-1 dated 02.02.2018. In the course of court proceedings, judges established existence of two different Protocol Decisions of the Commission of the Cabinet of Ministers of RUz with the same number and date. In this regard, the Applicants have a third argument about the illegality of the contested decision of the Khokim of Tashkent city - the decision was issued on the basis of a false Protocol Decision of the CM RUz. At the request of the lawyer on 26.08.2019, the aplaintiffs managed to obtain a certified copy of the Protocol Decision No. 01-05/121-1 dated 02.02.2018 consisting of 15 sheets from the Chancellery of the CM RUz. “If there were two Protocols with the same number and date, the Chancellery of the CM RUz would have issued both Protocols”, the plaintiffs argue . But the first-instance court, without examining this argument of the applicants, did not even discuss it in its judgment and did not make any conclusions about its groundlessness and unreasonableness. And the court of cassation instance in its ruling indicated that the case file contains certified copies of both Protocol Decisions No. 01-05/121-1 dated 02.02.2018, which excludes the Applicants' allegation of forgery of the Protocol. During the courts of both instances, neither the representative of the Tashkent City Khokimiyat, nor the representative of the Developer presented a certified copy of the Protocol Decision of the CM No. 01-05/121-1 dated 02.02.2018, which is in the file of the Tashkent City Khokimiyat. After the ruling of the cassation instance, we again familiarized ourselves with the materials of the administrative case and found that on 26.11.2019, i.e. AFTER the announcement of the ruling of the cassation instance, allegedly, from the Cabinet of Ministers of RUz a written response to the request of Judge Mirzaeva I. out. №05/121-1 dated 25.11.2019 with the attachment of 3 certified copies of the CM Protocol Decision №01-05/121-1 on 24 sheets) was received from the Cabinet of Ministers of RUz. This document caused us even more surprise, as the cover letter is written on the letterhead of the Information and Analytical Department on issues of public utilities, ecology, environmental protection, transport, capital construction and construction industry of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Uzbekistan, which was abolished by the Decree of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan № PP-4136 dated 28.01.2019, and Abidov Sh., who signed this document, is the Head of the Secretariat for Integrated Development of Territories, Communications and Defense Industry of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Uzbekistan. The letterhead of this Secretariat has a completely different design. By an amazing coincidence, the outgoing number of this letter is designated as #05/121-1, and for some reason this outgoing number of the letter corresponds to the number of the protocols presented in the annex, whereas the numbering of the letters of the Secretariat for Integrated Development of Territories, Communications and Defense Industry of the Cabinet of Ministers of RUz actually looks like this: "I8-Yu-14-7/____", where "I8-Yu-14-7" is the number determining the belonging of the letter to this particular Secretariat. The materials of the case do not contain the envelope in which the letter was delivered and we, quite reasonably, have a question, how did this letter get to the administrative court of Tashkent? And how could the cassation board of judges indicate this document as written evidence, if it was received a day after the announcement of the ruling! Our lawyer sent a lawyer's request to the Administrative Court of Tashkent on 23.12.2019 with a request to inform how this document was delivered. But by letter No. 1-4558/17 dated 16.01.2020, the chairman of the court Akbarov N. did not consider it necessary to provide the requested information and advised the lawyer to familiarize himself with the case materials again. It is necessary to emphasize numerous gross violations of procedural law in the course of consideration of the cassation appeal in the administrative court of Tashkent city. On 25.11.2019, during the court session, Judge Mirzaeva I. handed over to the plaintiffs' counsel a stack of documents of about 70 sheets, received through the court office from the Defendant and the Third Party. The lawyer stated a motion to postpone the court session and provide time to familiarize himself with the documents and prepare a written opinion on them. But Judge Mirzaeva I., violating all procedural norms, without discussing the motion of the lawyer with the participants of the process, announced the debate of the parties, whereas according to Article 39 of the Code of Administrative Proceeding of Uzbekistan: "Persons participating in the case shall have the right to familiarize themselves with the case materials, make extracts from them, make copies, make challenges, present evidence, participate in the examination of evidence, ask questions, make motions, make statements, give oral and written explanations to the court, present their arguments, conclusions on all issues arising in the course of consideration of the case, object to motions, arguments of other persons participating in the case, appeal (protest) against judicial acts and enjoy other procedural rights provided by the Court of Appeal of other persons participating in the case, appeal (protest) against judicial acts and use other procedural rights” Also Article 147 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of the Republic of Uzbekistan stipulates: "Applications and petitions of persons participating in the case, on demanding new evidence and on all other issues related to the proceedings of the case, are resolved by the court after hearing the opinions of other persons participating in the case. Based on the results of consideration of applications and petitions of the persons participating in the case, the court shall make a ruling. The conclusions of the court on satisfaction or rejection of applications and petitions of the persons participating in the case may be stated in the judicial act rendered as a result of consideration of the case".

Response from Training Project LLC:

The general director of Training Project LLC, Aziza Popov, issued a reply on Facebook (3 September 2020) arguing that adequate compensation has been offered to the residents (7).

In the spring of 2022, the developer cleared the site where 13 buildings had previously been located (compensation was paid by the owner, according to the developer) and began digging a huge pit to build a multistorey apartment block (15, 16).

However, it appears, this large building will be located between an existing 7 and 5-storey building. Residents believe that this construction violates urban planning norms regarding building density. The maintenance of their homes will also suffer, as the existing electricity, gas and water supply and sewerage infrastructure is not designed for the new large building (23).

Two private housing owners' associations from this area - “Zebuzar” (one building with 28 apartments) and “Nur Ijod” (five buildings with 150 flats in total) – lodged a claim to the Tashkent Interdistrict Administrative Court against Tashkent General Directorate of Construction. The plaintiffs asked the court to invalidate thee authorization to construct a 14-storey building which was issued to Training Project Ltd.

The Tashkent Interdistrict Administrative Court opened the case N°5-1001-2207/1357. It was considered by the Juge Khaydarov B.I The judge took account of the developer's arguments regarding town planning regulations.The Judge did not find reason to cancel the authorization to construct the building. In his decision of August 22, 2022, he upheld the authorization issued to the developer (21).

In the frame of the Case N°5-1001-2207/1357 , the Jugge Khaydarov B.I. issued a ruling ordering the developer to suspend its construction until all proceedings in the courts have been completed, but the developer is in systematic breach of this injunction (22).

Residents appealed to the Tashkent City Administrative Court. The first meeting of the appeals commission, chaired by Judge Hodzhiev, took place on Friday, October 14 2022, in the absence of the defendant, the Tashkent General Directorate of Construction. The judge heard the complaint of plaintiffs - Zebuzar Kommunal and Nur Ijod housing cooperatives - and objections of Training Project LLC, which participated as a third party. (24)

The residents requested that the decision of the interdistrict court be set aside because the court had violated the rules of substantive and procedural law, and the court's findings did not correspond to the factual circumstances of the case.

In particular, the residents believed that the court did not sufficiently review documentation of compliance with insolation, fire safety and seismic regulations. On the part of the defendant and the third party, the court was not provided with a conclusion of the Fire Department on the compliance of the construction with fire and earthquake safety standards in case of evacuation in case of fire, emergency, etc.

"The court did not establish the reliability of the documents provided by Training Project LLC, and no specialists were invited to court," claimed Gilmanova's lawyer.

For example, the court stated in the decision that on the layout of the site plan the distance between the long sides is 43 metres, between the ends of the buildings with windows from the living rooms is 20.4 metres. This corresponds to the norms of insolation in accordance with Urbanization Rules Standard #2.07.01-03* (25)

(Although from Act 122 of 17.03.2022 it appears that the distance is 47.60 metres and 18.30 metres).

However, item 21.1 of the same Urbanization Rules Standard #2.07.01-03* prescribes: "On sites with a seismicity of 8 points or higher, the distance between the long sides of residential buildings must be no less than two heights of the tallest building". Obviously, the above distances for a 14-storey building do not provide anti-seismic safety, given that Tashkent is located on a site with a seismicity of 8. However, the court did not appear to register these legal requirements.

The court also did not register in its decision the Note to Paragraph 21.1 of the Urbanization Rules Standard, which states: "It is not allowed to locate in existing neighbourhoods objects of any purpose between apartment buildings, except for special buildings and structures (sports grounds, playgrounds for children, areas for drying clothes, temporary car parks for cars)".

Aziza Popova, director of the aforementioned LLC, responded that she could build something low, but only if the residents reimbursed her for the $2.5 million she had spent on demolishing the houses on the site and paying compensation.

The court stated in its decision that the installation of the fence had been approved by the Tashkent Main Directorate of Internal Affairs and a permit had been obtained, so it did not accept the arguments that it had been installed incorrectly. Although, as we wrote above, Judge Haidarov personally visited the site on 8 July and saw that the fence included the pavement. Pedestrians are now forced to walk along the road, wading through passing cars.

It is unclear why the court rejected the residents demand to commission an urban planning technical examination to determine whether the design and estimate documentation complied with "Sanitary Rules and Norms of Planning and Development of Settlements in Uzbekistan" No. 0339-16, Urbanization Rules Standard #2.07.01-03* "Urban Planning. Planning the Development and Construction of Urban and Rural Residential Areas", Urbanization Rules Standard #2.01.02-04 "Fire Safety of Buildings and Structures".

Regarding the allegedly missed deadline for appealing to the court, the decision states that the master plan of the development with the number of houses and their location was approved in 2018, and as of 2019 it is posted on a billboard near the sales office of Training Project LLC. The residents object to this claim because no evidence has been presented to support the court's findings: where, at what address is the sales office located? Is this master plan actually posted there?

The developers claim they allegedly put up a poster on the fence in February 2022 showing exactly what kind of building would be built. However, residents claim the approval of the poster was only made on March 2, 2022, and the alignment of the axes of the house under construction was approved by Act O`ZGASHKLITI on March 17, 2022, No. 122. Thus it is claimed there is no way the poster could have been put up in February 2022, much less in 2019.

"In fact, the poster was put up in late April 2022, after giving notice of commencement of construction and installation works through the single portal of public services my.gov.uz on 13.04.2022," residents claim.

The residents seek protection in the Urbanisation Code, Article 8 of which states: "The public interest in urban planning is the right of citizens to a favourable living environment, prevention of harmful effects of economic and other activities on the environment, improvement of the environmental situation, development of engineering, transport and social infrastructure in and around populated areas, preservation of cultural heritage, and openness and transparency of urban planning".

The process in the Appellate Court lasted several months, and it was not until February 21, 2023 that the judge ruled to deny the residents of the apartment buildings on Sadik Azimov Street their claim. The residents referred to a speech by the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan, Shavkat Mirziyoyev, who, after the terrible earthquakes in Turkey and Syria and after the energy crisis in Uzbekistan, sharply criticized such construction in the absence of a master plan for the city. A moratorium on new construction was announced loudly but verbally. But the judge of the city administrative court did not heed the words of the head of state, considering them irrelevant. Residents requested a construction expertise, but the Suleymanova Institute refused to conduct it for lack of competence. (25) Residents continue to protest against this construction: (27, 28)

The factory Altromark LLC was forcefully evicted from their Tashkent property by the city authorities in 2021, to reacquire the land for a new metro line. The company did not consent to the eviction on the grounds that the compensation offered was inadequate. According to Altromark, they faced intimidation, threats and physical violence from the Tashkent Hokimiyat.