A.S. v. GEORGIA AND AZERBAIJAN

Published on 7 July 2025

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 36296/24
A.S.
against Georgia and Azerbaijan
lodged on 9 December 2024
communicated on 16 June 2025

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the pending extradition of the applicant (an Azerbaijani national, a well-known journalist and a chief editor of a news portal) from Georgia to Azerbaijan, where he is sought on charges of extortion in relation to public officials. Due to the alleged harassment and persecution by the Azerbaijani authorities, the applicant left Azerbaijan and moved to Georgia in December 2023. In early July 2024 his wife and two minor children joined him. On 18 July 2024 the Georgian border police prevented the applicant and his family from travelling to Bosnia and Herzegovina for reasons that remain unclear. Criminal proceedings, which were promptly initiated at the applicant’s request in connection with that event, are apparently still ongoing.

On 3 August 2024 the applicant was arrested in Tbilisi based on an extradition request from Azerbaijan and placed in detention for three months pending extradition. The detention was subsequently extended twice, until 16 April 2025, when the applicant was released on bail.

In the meantime, on 6 August 2024, the applicant applied for asylum in Georgia. On 16 September 2024 the Migration Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs refused to grant him asylum on any grounds, finding that he had failed to substantiate his request. The refusal was later confirmed by the national courts.

On 28 November 2024 the Tbilisi City Court, acting at the request of the General Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia, granted the Azerbaijani authorities’ extradition request. The court rejected, among other things, the applicant’s allegations of a real risk of ill-treatment in Azerbaijan as unsubstantiated. It noted that Azerbaijan was a member State of the Council of Europe bound by the Convention and that the Azerbaijani authorities had provided diplomatic assurances that the applicant would not be subjected to torture or any form of ill-treatment. The Tbilisi City Court also rejected the applicant’s allegations that the charges on which his extradition was sought had been fabricated, and that, if extradited, he would face an unfair criminal trial in breach of Article 6 of the Convention. On 9 December 2024 the Supreme Court confirmed the order for the applicant’s extradition to Azerbaijan.

On 27 February 2025, following the applicant’s request under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, the Court decided, in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before it, to indicate to the Government of Georgia that the applicant should not be removed to Azerbaijan for the duration of the proceedings before the Court.

As far as Georgia is concerned, the applicant complains, under Article 3 of the Convention, that if extradited, he would face a real risk of being subjected to ill-treatment in Azerbaijan on account of his journalistic activities. He further alleges, under Article 6, that he would also face a real and substantial risk of a flagrant denial of justice, and under Article 8, that his extradition would constitute a disproportionate interference with his family life due to separation from his family. In connection with his detention pending extradition, the applicant complains, under Article 5 § 1 (f) that it was both unjustified and unduly prolonged. Lastly, he alleges under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 of the Convention that the Georgian authorities unlawfully prevented him from leaving the Georgian territory.

As regards Azerbaijan, the applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that there was no reasonable suspicion that he had committed an offence and that his extradition request was based on fabricated charges. He further relies on Article 18 of the Convention in this connection.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

As regards the applicant’s potential extradition:

1.  In the light of the general situation in Azerbaijan and the applicant’s personal circumstances, would the applicant face, if extradited, a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? Did the national authorities adequately assess his claim concerning the risk of ill‑treatment on account of his journalistic activities (see the recapitulation of the relevant general principles in Khasanov and Rakhmanov v. Russia ([GC], nos. 28492/15 and 49975/15, §§ 95-116, 29 April 2022); see also G.S. v. Bulgaria, no. 36538/17, §§ 79-80, 4 April 2019, with further references)?

2.  Would the applicant, if extradited, be at real risk of a flagrant denial of justice, contrary to Article 6 of the Convention (see the recapitulation of the relevant general principles in Harkins v. the United Kingdom ((dec.) [GC], no. 71537/14, §§ 62-65, ECHR 2017))?

3.  Would there be an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his family life if the extradition order is enforced? If so, would such interference amount to a violation of Article 8 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Butt v. Norway, no. 47017/09, § 76-91, 4 December 2012)?

As regards the remaining complaints:

1.  Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular,

(i) was the applicant’s detention in conformity with the requirements of the relevant domestic and international law?

(ii) was his detention pending extradition justified within the meaning of Article 5 § 1(f) of the Convention (see Azimov v. Russia, no. 67474/11, § 161, 18 April 2013)? The Government’s reply in this respect should also address the prolongation of the application’s detention after 27 February 2025, when the Court decided to apply Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.

2.  Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to liberty of movement, contrary to Article 2 of Protocol No. 4? Reference is made to the alleged incident of 18 July 2024, when the applicant was not permitted to board his flight to Bosnia and Herzegovina. In this regard, has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?

1.  Did the facts of which the applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, notably his arrest and detention in Georgia at the request of the Azerbaijani authorities, occur within the jurisdiction of Azerbaijan and engage Azerbaijan’s responsibility under the Convention in respect of his complaints (see Vasiliciuc v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 15944/11, §§ 21‑25, 2 May 2017)? In the event that they did, were his arrest and detention in breach of that provision?

2.  Has there been a violation of Article 18 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 5 § 1?