Communicated on 26 May 2016
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 13731/12
Khaver ALIBEYOVA
against Azerbaijan
lodged on 17 February 2012
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Khaver Alibeyova, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1940 and lives in Baku. She is represented before the Court by Mr I. Aliyev, a lawyer practising in Azerbaijan.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 27 February 2009 the applicant tripped over while walking down the street on her way home and suffered a severe fracture of her left leg. After leaving hospital she continued to have treatment at home.
On an unspecified date in 2009 the applicant brought a civil action for damages in the Sabail District Court against the Baku City Executive Authority and the Azerbaijani Road Service Open Joint-Stock Company, founded by and at the material time operating under the Ministry of Transport of the Republic of Azerbaijan.
On 18 June 2010 the Sabail District Court delivered a judgment partially granting the applicant’s claim. It ordered the respondents to pay the applicant compensation of 30,000 Azerbaijani manats (AZN) (equivalent to 30,300 euros (EUR) at the material time) in respect of pecuniary damage and AZN 20,000 (equivalent to EUR 20,200 at the material time) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The judgment became final and enforceable.
On 26 July 2010 the Sabail District Department of Enforcement (“the Department of Enforcement”) commenced enforcement proceedings. In July 2010 as part of those proceedings it notified the respondents of the ten-day time-limit for voluntary compliance with the court’s judgment. On 6 September 2010, it issued a collection order against Baku City Executive Authority’s bank account.
In October 2010 in response to several complaints by the applicant about the non-enforcement of the judgment, the Ministry of Justice informed her that the execution of the judgment with respect to the Azerbaijani Road Service Open Joint-Stock Company had been postponed because the company had appealed against it.
On an unspecified date in 2010 the company and the Baku City Executive Authority lodged appeals with the Baku Court of Appeal against the first-instance judgment. The applicant, in turn, lodged an objection to those appeals with the same appeal court, claiming that they had been lodged outside the time-limit and that there were no grounds to restore that time-limit.
On 15 April 2011 the Baku Court of Appeal quashed the Sabail District Court’s judgment and dismissed the applicant’s claims, holding that they had not been proved before the first-instance court.
On 10 June 2011 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court and complained, inter alia, about the overruling of the Sabail District Court’s final and enforceable judgment by the Baku Court of Appeal.
On 18 August 2011 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal and upheld the judgment of the Baku Court of Appeal.
On 8 August 2014 the applicant’s representative before the Court, Mr I. Aliyev, was arrested on charges of tax evasion, abuse of power and illegal entrepreneurship. On 8 and 9 August 2014 the prosecuting authorities conducted a search of Mr Aliyev’s home and office. During the search, a large number of documents, including all the case files relating to the applications before the Court that were in Mr I. Aliyev’s possession as a representative, were seized by the domestic authorities.
By a fax dated 28 August 2014, Mr I. Aliyev informed the Court of the seizure of the case files, claiming a breach of Article 34 of the Convention in respect of all the applications affected. In letters sent to the Court in September 2014 Mr I. Aliyev reiterated his complaint about the seizure of the case files.
On 25 October 2014 some of the seized documents were returned to Mr J. Javadov, Mr. I. Aliyev’s counsel.
COMPLAINTS
Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant complains of an infringement of the principle of legal certainty as a result of the quashing of the final and enforceable judgment in her favour.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of legal certainty respected with regard to the quashing of the final and enforceable judgment of the Sabail District Court of 18 June 2010 in her favour?
2. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of her possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, as a consequence of the quashing of the final and enforceable judgment of the Sabail District Court of 18 June 2010? If so, was that interference in compliance with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?
3. In view of the seizure of the applicant’s case file from Mr I. Aliyev’s office on 8 and 9 August 2014, has the State hindered the effective exercise of the applicant’s right of application under Article 34 of the Convention?
4. The parties are requested to provide copies of all the documents concerning the applicant’s case, including the domestic court decisions and the applications of the Baku City Executive Authority and the Azerbaijani Transport Road Service Open Joint-Stock Company on renewal of the time-limits for lodging an appeal.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy