THIRD SECTION
CASE OF IBRAHIM v. AZERBAIJAN
(Application no. 17359/16)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
6 March 2025
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Ibrahim v. Azerbaijan,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir, President,
Úna Ní Raifeartaigh,
Mateja Đurović, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 6 February 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application against Azerbaijan lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 16 March 2016.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr Y. Imanov, a lawyer based in Azerbaijan.
3. The Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.
THE FACTS
4. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.
5. The applicant complained under Article 5 of the Convention about the unlawful detention.
THE LAW
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 1 of the Convention6. Relying on Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complained that prior to having been brought before a judge, he had been detained in excess of the maximum forty-eight-hour period permitted by the domestic law.
7. In the leading cases of Salayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 40900/05, 9 November 2010 and Farhad Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 37138/06, 9 November 2010, 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 on the admissibility and merits of this complaint. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicant’s deprivation of liberty from 11.30 p.m. on 30 September 2015 to 3 p.m. on 3 October 2015, which was a detention without a judicial order for a time period exceeding the forty-eight-hour period permitted by the domestic law, was unlawful within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
9. This complaint is therefore admissible and discloses a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
REMAINING COMPLAINTS10. Relying on Article 5 of the Convention, the applicant also complained that his arrest had been unlawful because there had been no reasonable suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence and that the initial order on his remand in custody had been contrary to the requirements of the domestic law.
11. Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and its findings above, the Court considers that it has dealt with the main legal question raised in the present application and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the remaining complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION12. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claims for just satisfaction.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Declares the complaint under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention concerning the lawfulness of the applicant’s initial detention prior to being brought before a judge admissible and finds that there is no need examine separately the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints raised by the applicant;Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention concerning the lawfulness of the applicant’s initial detention prior to being brought before a judge;Holds(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, 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 remainder of the applicant’s claims for just satisfaction.Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 March 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article Art. 5 § 1 of the Convention
(unlawful detention)
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Start date of unlawful detention
End date of unlawful detention
Specific defects in respect of the main complaint
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage
(in euros)[1]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses
(in euros)[2]
17359/16
16/03/2016
Mammad Aziz oglu IBRAHIM
1966
Yalchin IMANOV
Sumgayit
30/09/2015
11.30 p.m.
03/10/2015
3 p.m.
Detention without a court order beyond the 48-hour time-limit (see Farhad Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 37138/06, §§ 154‑69 and §§ 172‑79, 9 November 2010, and Salayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 40900/05, §§ 34‑48, 9 November 2010)
2,000
250
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.