Accordingly, the apartment was their "home" within the meaning of Article 8. Moreover, the applicants were evicted from their home following an eviction procedure started in November 2012 (see paragraph 17 above), which clearly constituted an interference with their right guaranteed under Article 8 (see Alif Ahmadov and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 22619/14, § 58, 4 May 2023).

The Court reiterates, however, that the absence of any reaction from the State authorities over a certain period of time should not have been understood by the applicant company as meaning that proceedings for the recovery of the State bonuses and the corresponding penalties could not be brought against it (see, mutatis mutandis, Alif Ahmadov and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 22619/14, § 44, 4 May 2023), along with all their corresponding implications for the applicant company's enjoyment of its business.

However, from the casefile and the arguments raised before the domestic courts, it does not transpire that the applicant indeed argued before the domestic courts that the said house had been his "only home" or that he and his family would "remain homeless" with its demolition (contrast with Alif Ahmadov and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 22619/14, §§ 11, 17 and 52, 4 May 2023, where the applicant argued before the domestic courts that the house in question was their only home and that they would end up on the street if evicted; and Orlic v. Croatia, no. 48833/07, §§ 26 and 41, 21 June 2011, where the applicant argued that the eviction would render him and his family homeless).