FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF ARIF ISLAMZADE v. AZERBAIJAN
(Application no. 57745/11 and 21 others ‑
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
12 October 2017
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Arif Islamzade v. Azerbaijan,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Nona Tsotsoria, President,
Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer,
Lәtif Hüseynov, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 21 September 2017,
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 applications were communicated to the Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”).
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 of domestic decisions.
THE LAW
I. JOINDER 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.
II. THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST FOR THE CASES TO BE STRUCK OUT UNDER ARTICLE 37 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
6. In some of the applications (nos. 42843/13, 57382/14, 46520/14 and 13873/15), the Government submitted unilateral declarations inviting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 of the Convention. The applicants did not comment on the Government’s unilateral declarations.
7. Having studied the terms of the Government’s unilateral declarations and finding in particular that the amount of compensation offered in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage does not constitute adequate and sufficient redress for the violations of the applicants’ rights under the Convention (see, among many others, Gulmammadova v. Azerbaijan, no. 38798/07, §§ 51-63, 22 April 2010, and Zulfali Huseynov v. Azerbaijan, no. 56547/10, §§ 21-37, 26 June 2012), the Court considers that the proposed declarations do not provide a sufficient basis for concluding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue its examination of these applications (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 75, ECHR 2003‑VI, and Magoch v. Poland, no. 29539/07, §§ 15-20, 2 February 2010).
8. Therefore, the Court rejects the Government’s requests to strike the applications out of its list of cases under Article 37 § 1 of the Convention and will accordingly pursue its examination of the admissibility and merits of the cases.
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION
9. The applicants complained of the non-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 to the Convention, 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.”
10. 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).
11. In the leading cases of Akhundov v. Azerbaijan (no. 39941/07, §§ 15‑40, 3 February 2011) and Jafarli and Others v. Azerbaijan (no. 36079/06, §§ 29-58, 29 July 2010), as well as in the case of Mirzayev v. Azerbaijan (no. 50187/06, §§ 23-41, 3 December 2009), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
12. The Court further notes that the decisions in the present applications ordered specific action to be taken. The Court therefore considers that the decisions in question constitute “possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
13. 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.
14. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
15. 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.”
16. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, among many others, Zulfali Huseynov v. Azerbaijan, no. 56547/10, §§ 21-37, 26 June 2012), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. It rejects any additional claims for just satisfaction raised by the applicants.
17. The Court further notes that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to enforce the judgments which remain enforceable.
18. 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,
1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Rejects the Government’s request to strike the applications nos. 42843/13, 57382/14, 46520/14 and 13873/15 out of its list of cases under Article 37 § 1 of the Convention;
3. Declares the applications admissible;
4. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning the non-enforcement of domestic decisions;
5. 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;
6. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the following amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into New Azerbaijani manats at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) in respect of damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable;
(ii) in respect of costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, to be paid into the applicants’ representatives’ bank accounts;
(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;
7. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 12 October 2017, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv TigerstedtNona Tsotsoria
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1
(non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant name
Date of birth /
Date of registration
Representative 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 pecuniary damage per applicant/household
(in euros)[1]
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage
(in euros)[2]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros)[3]
57745/11
01/09/2011
Arif Islamzade
09/01/1949
Sumgayit Court of Appeal, 14/10/2009
14/10/2009
Pending
more than 7 years and 9 months
0
0
33585/13
06/05/2013
Almas Abdullayeva
22/05/1966
Mustafazade Ruslan
Sumgayit Court of Appeal, 17/09/2012
17/09/2012
Pending
more than 4 years and 10 months
2,500
3,000
200
36130/13
08/05/2013
Mazahir Bagirov
01/04/1956
Mustafazade Ruslan
Sumgayit Court of Appeal, 03/02/2009
03/02/2009
Pending
more than 8 years and 5 months
6,180
3,600
200
42843/13
17/06/2013
Namig Hajiyev
01/04/1967
Mustafazade Ruslan
Supreme Court, 19/04/2012
19/04/2012
Pending
more than 5 years and 2 months
3,570
3,600
200
53125/13
25/07/2013
Isa Rustamov
01/08/1988
Mustafazade Ruslan
Sumqayit City Court, 13/02/2013
13/03/2013
Pending
more than 4 years and 4 months
2,400
0
54494/13
05/08/2013
Rana Gasimova
01/09/1963
Mustafazade Ruslan
Sumgayit Court of Appeal, 24/07/2012
24/07/2012
Pending
more than 4 years and 11 months
3,000
0
17212/14
15/02/2014
Sohbat Gayibov
22/04/1963
Mustafazade Ruslan
Supreme Court, 20/10/1999
15/04/2002
Pending
more than 15 years and 3 months
3,600
0
17225/14
13/02/2014
Akif Khalilov
01/07/1948
Mustafazade Ruslan
Sumqayit Court of Appeal, 18/11/2009
18/11/2009
Pending
more than 7 years and 8 months
3,600
0
41015/14
19/05/2014
Aziz Agasbeyov
12/09/1956
Aliyev Akif
Surakhani District Court, 01/06/2011
01/07/2011
Pending
more than 6 years
3,600
200
46520/14
13/06/2014
Elman Shahmuradov
26/05/1961
Mustafazade Ruslan
Sumgayit City Court, 15/01/2014
15/02/2014
Pending
more than 3 years and 5 months
2,070
1,800
200
46522/14
13/06/2014
Jumshud Ismiyev
23/09/1956
Mustafazade Ruslan
Sumgayit City Court, 14/04/2000
15/04/2002
Pending
more than 15 years and 3 months
3,600
0
57382/14
06/08/2014
Najafali Babayev
25/12/1958
Nuriyev Alimammad
Baku Court of Appeal, 05/05/2010
05/05/2010
Pending
more than 7 years and 2 months
4,860
3,600
0
70660/14
20/10/2014
Tabriz Hasanov
10/08/1956
Mustafazade Ruslan
Sumgayit City Court, 23/04/2013
23/05/2013
Pending
more than 4 years and a month
2,400
200
13873/15
05/03/2015
Shahlar Guliyev
02/02/1964
Mustafazade Ruslan
Sumgayit City Court, 12/06/2012
12/07/2012
Pending
more than 5 years
3,670
3,000
200
35865/15
14/07/2015
Tahir Majidov
20/01/1996
Mustafazade Ruslan
Baku Court of Appeal, 21/07/2010
21/07/2010
Pending
more than 6 years and 11 months
3,600
200
37075/15
22/07/2015
Dashdamir Aliyev
03/08/1960
Mustafazade Ruslan
Supreme Court, 20/02/2013
20/02/2013
Pending
more than 4 years and 4 months
2,400
200
40227/15
04/08/2015
Leyla Mammadova
24/08/1961
Alizade Akif
Supreme Court, 21/07/2014
21/07/2014
Pending
more than 2 years and 11 months
1,500
200
60598/15
27/11/2015
Xaladdin Mammadov
27/01/1961
Mustafazade Ruslan
Narimanov District Court, 01/09/1998
15/04/2002
Pending
more than 15 years and 3 months
3,600
200
9308/16
04/02/2016
Kamil Najafov
13/12/1941
Mustafazade Ruslan
Surakhani District Court, 11/04/2013
11/05/2013
Pending
more than 4 years and 2 months
2,400
200
12222/16
23/02/2016
Mahammad Abbasov
03/04/1962
Baloglanov Teymur
Nasimi District Court, 27/12/1994
15/04/2002
Pending
more than 15 years
3,600
200
15499/16
03/03/2016
Salbi Bakhshaliyeva
02/09/1957
Mustafazade Ruslan
Sumgayit Court of Appeal, 07/06/2010
07/06/2010
Pending
more than 6 years and 1 month
3,600
200
17069/16
26/02/2016
Ziyadkhan Ahmadov
01/09/1957
Mustafazade Ruslan
Sumgayit City Court, 08/12/2009
08/01/2010
Pending
more than 7 years and 6 months
3,600
200
[1]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable.
[2]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
[3]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy