FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF ALIYEVA AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
(Application nos. 64593/16 and 3 others - see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
8 October 2020
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Aliyeva and Others v. Azerbaijan,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Ganna Yudkivska, President,
Lado Chanturia,
Anja Seibert-Fohr, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 17 September 2020,
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 the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicants complained of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions.
THE LAWJOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
5. 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 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
6. The applicants complained of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given in their favour. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which read as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”
7. The Court reiterates that the execution of a judgment given by any court must be regarded as an integral part of a “hearing” for the purposes of Article 6. It also refers to its case-law concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of final domestic judgments (see Hornsby v. Greece, no. 18357/91, § 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997‑II).
8. In the leading cases of Akhundov v. Azerbaijan, no. 39941/07, 3 February 2011; Jafarli and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 36079/06, 29 July 2010; and Faber Firm and Jafarov v. Azerbaijan, no. 3365/08, 25 November 2010, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
9. 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 on 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 authorities did not deploy all necessary efforts to enforce fully and in due time the decisions in the applicants’ favour.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
11. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
12. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Akhundov, cited above; Faber Firm and Jafarov, cited above; and Mirzayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 50187/06, 3 December 2009), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
13. The Court further notes that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to enforce the judgments which remain enforceable.
14. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,Decides to join the applications;Declares the applications admissible;Holds that these applications disclose breaches of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the non‑enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions;Holds that the respondent State shall ensure, by appropriate means, within three months, the enforcement of the pending domestic decisions referred to in the appended table;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.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 8 October 2020, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv TigerstedtGanna Yudkivska
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
(non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Date of birth
Representative’s name and location
Relevant domestic decision
Start date of non-enforcement period
End date of non-enforcement period
Length of enforcement proceedings
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant/household
(in euros)[1]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros)[2]
64593/16
01/11/2016
Mahbuba Abbas gizi ALIYEVA
21/01/1961
Yasamal District Court,
24/04/2008
24/05/2008
pending
More than 11 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 10 day(s)
3,600
-
31536/17
20/04/2017
Nazim Mammad oglu NASIROV
07/12/1962
Binagadi District Court,
21/11/2014
16/01/2015
19/06/2017
2 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 4 day(s)
1,200
-
9554/18
12/02/2018
Rahima Alakbar gizi HUSEYNOVA
22/12/1952
Namazli Fariz Mubariz oglu
Baku
Yasamal District Court,
12/08/2011
12/09/2011
pending
More than 7 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 10 day(s)
3,600
200
35214/18
10/07/2018
Household
Zeytuna Zakeriyanovna NURULOVA
14/11/1971
Nail Fatikovich NURULOV
05/06/1959
Vahidov Elman Bahram oglu
Baku
Supreme Court, 08/09/2005
08/09/2005
pending
More than 13 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 14 day(s)
3,600
200
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy