5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Ganja. 6.  The applicant had ownership rights to a shop at 32 Attarlar Street in Ganja. According to the certificate “on the sale of State property to legal entities or individuals” issued on 30 October 2003 by the Ministry of Economic Development’s Department of Management and Privatisation of State Property, the total area of the property was 78.3 sq. m and it had been purchased by the applicant from the State for 1,309,000 old Azerbaijani manats (AZM) (equivalent to 261.8 New Azerbaijani manats (AZN) or approximately 230 euros). 7.  According to the property’s “technical passport” issued by the Ministry of Economic Development’s Property Inventory Bureau on 5 September 2003, the shop had originally been constructed in 1972, was located on a plot of land of 84 sq. m, had a total surface area of 78.3 sq. m and was 3.5 m high. The shop had concrete foundations, the external and internal walls were made of metal and wood, while the roof was made of metal and covered with slate tiles. The property was classified as a non‑residential building used for wholesale or retail trade purposes. The document further stated that the plot of land on which the shop was located had been allocated on the basis of relevant documents. No other documents concerning the ownership of the land have been submitted by the parties. 8.  The applicant paid land tax for 2004 of AZM 19,400 for the plot underneath the shop. 9.  In 2004 the Ganja City Executive Authority (“the GCEA”) decided to renovate and widen Attarlar and Nizami Streets in accordance with the city’s planning scheme because the streets were not wide enough for the pedestrian and car traffic. 10.  According to the applicant, in November 2004 GCEA officials asked him verbally to vacate the shop in connection with the above decision. The applicant refused and brought a legal action asking the court to order the GCEA to stop its allegedly unlawful activities. 11.  According to the applicant, in December 2004 the GCEA destroyed the shop. According to the Government, the shop, being a transportable metal construction, was lifted away by crane and moved to an unspecified part of the city. 12.  On an unspecified date in December 2004 the applicant asked Aysel‑M, a private valuation firm, to assess the shop’s market value. According to Aysel-M’s expert report, dated 13 December 2004, the market value at the time was AZM 588,000,000, or 120,000 US dollars (USD) (there is no copy of the report in the case file). 13.  The applicant supplemented his court action against the GCEA with additional claims, asking for compensation of AZM 588,000,000 for the shop, AZM 99,000 for an unspecified “State fee” and AZM 490,000 for Aysel-M’s fee for the report. 14.  In its submissions to the court, the GCEA as the respondent stated that a number of “old shops and other retail facilities” on Attarlar and Nizami Streets had been removed owing to the urgent need to widen the streets in order to accommodate the number of pedestrians and cars. The respondent argued that the applicant’s shop had not been destroyed but, being a metal construction, had been removed by crane to another, unspecified location in the city. The applicant had been offered another plot of land in the city to continue operating his shop but he had refused. The applicant had not owned the original plot of land. The respondent argued that the compensation claimed by the applicant was excessive, taking into account the price he had paid the State for it in 2003. 15.  Following the respondent’s submissions concerning the alleged excessiveness of the compensation claim, by an interim decision of 15 July 2005 the Khojavand District Court requested a new valuation by a State expert. 16.  On an unspecified date the State expert refused to issue an opinion, noting that the shop at 32 Attarlar Street no longer existed and that therefore it was technically impossible to examine it and assess its market value. Accordingly, the interim decision of 15 July 2005 remained unexecuted. 17.  On 6 October 2005 the Khojavand District Court dismissed the applicant’s legal action without citing any provisions of the applicable domestic law. In its reasoning the court accepted the GCEA’s explanation that the shop in question had been removed in accordance with town‑planning policy. Being a metal construction it had been possible to move it in one piece. It had not been destroyed but simply transported to another location. The court also accepted that the applicant had been offered a new plot of land by the GCEA but had refused it. It further decided to reject the applicant’s compensation claim based on Aysel-M’s report, without providing any reasons. However, the court ordered the GCEA to allocate the applicant a plot of land in Ganja equivalent in size to the shop in question. 18.  The applicant appealed, reiterating that his shop had been unlawfully destroyed and asking for compensation. 19.  On 23 January 2006 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal, upholding the first-instance court’s assessment. The appellate judgment contained no references to applicable domestic legal provisions. 20.  Following a further appeal by the applicant, on 14 July 2006 the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s judgment. 21.  No information is available in the case file as to whether a new land plot was allocated to the applicant or as to its location or any other details.