THIRD SECTION
CASE OF HASHIMOV v. AZERBAIJAN
(Applications nos. 31564/14 and 26563/16)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
9 October 2025
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Hashimov v. Azerbaijan,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Úna Ní Raifeartaigh, President,
Mateja Đurović,
Vasilka Sancin, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 18 September 2025,
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 applicant was represented by Mr E. Sadigov and Mr R. Hajili, lawyers based in Azerbaijan.
3. The Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.
THE FACTS
4. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the applications are set out in the appended table.
5. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention of the lack of justification for his pre-trial detention. He also raised additional complaints under various Convention provisions.
THE LAW
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS6. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications lodged by the applicant, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 of the Convention7. Relying on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the applicant complained that the domestic courts had failed to justify the necessity for the application of preventive measure of pre-trial detention in his case.
8. In the leading cases of Farhad Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 37138/06, 9 November 2010; Isayeva v. Azerbaijan, no. 36229/11, 25 June 2015; and Zayidov v. Azerbaijan, no. 11948/08, 20 February 2014, 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 this complaint. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the domestic courts failed to justify the need for the applicant’s pre-trial detention.
10. This complaint is therefore admissible and discloses a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW11. The applicant also raised complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) and Article 8 of the Convention concerning criminal proceedings against him (in particular, he complained that his conviction had been based on unlawfully obtained evidence and that he had had no adequate opportunity to challenge the evidence against him, and that his right to effective legal assistance had been breached) and search and seizure in his house and offices, respectively. These complaints are covered by the well-established case-law of the Court. They 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 violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Insanov v. Azerbaijan, no. 16133/08, § 165, 14 March 2013; Sakit Zahidov v. Azerbaijan, no. 51164/07, §§ 47-48, 12 November 2015; Prezhdarovi v. Bulgaria, no. 8429/05, §§ 43-44 and 50, 30 September 2014; and Azer Ahmadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 3409/10, §§ 63-75, 22 July 2021.
REMAINING COMPLAINTS12. Relying on Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, the applicant also complained of inadequate conditions of detention and of the alleged video surveillance in his cell in the detention facility, respectively.
13. The Court considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.
14. It follows that these complaints must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
15. In view of the above findings (see paragraphs 9-11 above), the Court also considers that there is no need to deal separately with the applicant’s remaining complaints under Articles 5, 10 and 18 of the Convention concerning the allegedly unlawful detention, lack of effective review of the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention and interference with his journalistic activities (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 CONVENTION16. 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,
Decides to join the applications;Declares the complaints under Article 5 § 3, Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) and Article 8 (concerning unlawful search and seizure) of the Convention admissible and the complaints under Articles 3 and Article 8 (concerning the alleged video surveillance in detention) of the Convention inadmissible, and finds that there is no need to examine separately the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints;Holds that there has been a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention;Holds that there has been a breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention;Holds that there has been a breach of Article 8 of the Convention concerning the unlawful search and seizure; 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;
(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 9 October 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Úna Ní Raifeartaigh
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
Applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 3, Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) and Article 8 of the Convention
(lack of justification for pre-trial detention, unfairness of criminal proceedings and unlawful search and seizure)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Period of detention
Length of
detention
Specific defects
Other complaints under well-established case-law
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage
(in euros)[1]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses
(in euros)[2]
1.
31564/14
11/04/2014
Parviz
Kamran oglu HASHIMOV
1981
Elchin
SADIGOV
Baku
Rashid
HAJILI
Baku
17/09/2013
to
15/05/2014
7 months and 29 days
fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case
progressed
Art. 6 (1) and (3) (c) - lack of fair hearing (see Insanov, cited above, § 165, and Sakit Zahidov, cited above, §§ 47-48).
The charges against the applicant were fabricated, as his conviction was based on planted evidence, in particular weapons and ammunition allegedly found in his home (in this connection, see also the details of the complaint under Article 8 below). The applicant’s right to confidential communication with his lawyer was breached as the officers of the detention facility of the Ministry of National Security searched his lawyer before and after their meetings and the meetings were recorded. The domestic courts failed to give reasoned responses to his requests and arguments in respect of the above-mentioned matters. The final judgment by the Supreme Court was delivered on 27 October 2015; the applicant was found guilty of illegal acquisition and storing of weapons and ammunition, as well as with smuggling under Articles 206 and 228 of the Criminal Code and was sentenced to 8 years’ imprisonment.
Art. 8 (1) - unlawful search and seizure (see Prezhdarovi, cited above, §§ 43-44 and 50, and Azer Ahmadov, cited above, §§ 63-75) -
the search and seizure conducted at the applicant’s home and offices on 17 September 2013 had been unlawful as it had not been ordered by the domestic courts either before or after the operation, in breach of the domestic law. He argued that he had never purchased any weapons and ammunition and that those found at his home had been put there by the police officers who had entered his home unlawfully. His complaints before the domestic courts in this regard were rejected in general terms, without sufficient justification. Therefore, the search and seizure had not been “in accordance with law”.
5,900
500
2.
26563/16
26/04/2016
Elchin
SADIGOV
Baku
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.