FIRST SECTION
CASE OF AHMADLI AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
(Applications nos. 26163/22 and 7 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
8 February 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Ahmadli and Others v. Azerbaijan,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Péter Paczolay, President,
Gilberto Felici,
Raffaele Sabato, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 18 January 2024,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Azerbaijan lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.
2. The Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.
THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and their representatives and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicants complained under Article 11 of the Convention of the disproportionate measures taken against them as participants of public assemblies. They also raised other complaints under Article 6 of the Convention.
THE LAW
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 11 OF THE CONVENTION6. The applicants complained principally of disproportionate measures taken against them as participants of public assemblies, namely the dispersal of these assemblies, as well as their arrest followed by their conviction for administrative offence.
7. In the leading cases of Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 60259/11, 15 October 2015, Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 67360/11 and 2 others, 11 February 2016; Ibrahimov and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 69234/11 and 2 others, 11 February 2016; Hajibeyli and Others v. Azerbaijan [Committee], nos. 5231/13 and 12 others, 30 June 2016; Mehtiyev and Others v. Azerbaijan [Committee], nos. 20589/13 and 7 others, 6 April 2017; and Hasanov and Others v. Azerbaijan [Committee], nos. 39919/07 and 14 others, 5 September 2019, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
8. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion as to the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the interferences with the applicants’ freedom of assembly were not “necessary in a democratic society”.
9. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW10. The applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention, given the relevant well‑established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention in the light of its findings in Gafgaz Mammadov, cited above, §§ 83-96; Huseynli and Others, cited above, §§ 119-24; and Pichugin v. Russia, no. 38623/03, §§ 187-92, 23 October 2012.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION11. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Gasimli v. Azerbaijan [Committee], nos. 57739/18, 28 September 2023, and Haziyev v. Azerbaijan [Committee], nos. 38931/20, 9 November 2023), the Court finds it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Decides to join the applications;Declares the applications admissible;Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention concerning the dispersal of the public assembly;Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well‑established case-law of the Court (see appended table for further details);Holds(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
Dismisses the reminder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.Done in English, and notified in writing on 8 February 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Péter Paczolay
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Articles 11 and 6 of the Convention
(unlawful or disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies and unfair trial in administrative-offence proceedings)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Name of the public event
Location
Date
Administrative offence
Penalty
Final domestic decision
Name of the court
Date
Other complaints under well-established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage
per applicant
(in euros)[1]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses
per application
(in euros)[2]
26163/22
16/04/2022
Fuad
Zafar oglu AHMADLI
1990
Zibeyda
SADIGOVA
Baku
Demonstration protesting the conviction of an opposition member
Baku
05/10/2021
and
08/10/2021
Articles 510 and 535 of the CAO
Administrative fine of
70 Azerbaijani manats
and
One month’s administrative detention
Baku Court of Appeal
15/11/2021
and
20/10/2021
Art. 6 (1) – insufficient or
manifestly unreasonable
justification of court decisions (see Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 60259/11, §§ 83-87, 15 October 2015, and Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 67360/11 and 2 others, §§ 119-24, 11 February 2016).
3,400
300
32307/22
08/06/2022
Elchin
Tahir oglu TEYMUROV
1989
Elchin
SADIGOV
Baku
Demonstration protesting against the conviction of an opposition member
Baku
01/12/2021
Article 211 of the CAO
Twenty-five days’ administrative detention
Baku Court of Appeal
08/12/2021
Art. 6 (1) – insufficient or
manifestly unreasonable
justification of court decisions (see Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 60259/11, §§ 83-87, 15 October 2015, and Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 67360/11 and 2 others, §§ 119-24, 11 February 2016).
2,600
250
32331/22
08/06/2022
Ilham
Telman oglu HUSEYNOV
1983
Zibeyda
SADIGOVA
Baku
Demonstration protesting against the conviction of an opposition member
Baku
01/12/2021
Article 211 of the CAO
Thirty days’ administrative detention
Baku Court of Appeal
10/12/2021
Art. 6 (1) – insufficient or
manifestly unreasonable
justification of court decisions (see Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 60259/11, §§ 83-87, 15 October 2015, and Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 67360/11 and 2 others, §§ 119-24, 11 February 2016),
Art. 6 (1) – trial in camera – the hearing before the trial court was closed to public (Pichugin v. Russia, no. 38623/03, §§ 187-92, 23 October 2012).
2,600
250
32337/22
09/06/2022
Sayyad
Arzuman oglu GULIYEV
1996
Elchin
SADIGOV
Baku
Demonstration protesting against the conviction of an opposition member
Baku
01/12/2021
Article 211 of the CAO
Fifteen days’ administrative detention
Baku Court of Appeal
10/12/2021
Art. 6 (1) – insufficient or
manifestly unreasonable
justification of court decisions (see Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 60259/11, §§ 83-87, 15 October 2015, and Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 67360/11 and 2 others, §§ 119-24, 11 February 2016).
2,600
250
32466/22
09/06/2022
Elkhan
Rustam oglu ALIYEV
1982
Elchin
SADIGOV
Baku
Demonstration protesting against the conviction of an opposition member
Baku
01/12/2021
Article 211 of the CAO
Twenty days’ administrative detention
Baku Court of Appeal
09/12/2021
Art. 6 (1) – insufficient or
manifestly unreasonable
justification of court decisions (see Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 60259/11, §§ 83-87, 15 October 2015, and Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 67360/11 and 2 others, §§ 119-24, 11 February 2016).
2,600
250
50157/22
01/10/2022
Aga-Ali Eldar oglu YAHYAYEV
1983
Zibeyda
SADIGOVA
Baku
Spontaneous peaceful assembly for attending the court hearing
Baku
20/05/2022
Articles 510 and 535 of the CAO
Thirty days’ administrative detention
Baku Court of Appeal
01/06/2022
Art. 6 (1) – insufficient or
manifestly unreasonable
justification of court decisions (see Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 60259/11, §§ 83-87,
15 October 2015, and Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 67360/11 and 2 others, §§ 119-24, 11 February 2016),
Art. 6 (1) – trial in camera – the hearing before the trial court was closed to public (Pichugin v. Russia, no. 38623/03, §§ 187-92, 23 October 2012).
2,600
250
50635/22
10/10/2022
Imran
Jalil oglu MAMMADLI
1996
Zibeyda
SADIGOVA
Baku
Spontaneous peaceful assembly for attending the court hearing
Baku
20/05/2022
Articles 510 and 535 of the CAO
Thirty days’ administrative detention
Baku Court of Appeal
10/06/2022
Art. 6 (1) – insufficient or
manifestly unreasonable
justification of court decisions (see Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 60259/11, §§ 83-87, 15 October 2015, and Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 67360/11 and 2 others, §§ 119-24, 11 February 2016),
Art. 6 (3) (c) – free legal assistance (see Gafgaz Mammadov, cited above, §§ 88-94, and Huseynli and Others, cited above, §§ 125-34),
Art. 6 (1) – trial in camera – the hearing before the trial court was closed to public (Pichugin v. Russia, no. 38623/03, §§ 187-92, 23 October 2012).
2,600
250
50642/22
07/10/2022
Elgiz
Elshad oglu MAMMADOV
1990
Zibeyda
SADIGOVA
Baku
Spontaneous peaceful assembly for attending the court hearing
Baku
20/05/2022
Articles 510 and 535 of the CAO
Thirty days’ administrative detention
Baku Court of Appeal
07/06/2022
Art. 6 (1) – insufficient or
manifestly unreasonable
justification of court decisions (see Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 60259/11, §§ 83-87, 15 October 2015, and Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 67360/11 and 2 others, §§ 119-24, 11 February 2016),
Art. 6 (3) (c) – free legal assistance (see Gafgaz Mammadov, cited above, §§ 88-94, and Huseynli and Others, cited above, §§ 125-34),
Art. 6 (1) – trial in camera – the hearing before the trial court was closed to public (Pichugin v. Russia, no. 38623/03, §§ 187-92, 23 October 2012).
2,600
250
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.