THIRD SECTION
CASE OF KARIMLI v. AZERBAIJAN
(Application no. 71846/13)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
10 July 2025
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Karimli 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 19 June 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 24 October 2013.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr A. Mustafayev and Mr R. Mustafazade, lawyers 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 11 of the Convention concerning the unlawful and disproportionate measures against him as a participant of public assembly (for more details see the appended table). He also raised other complaints under Article 5 § 1 and Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention.
THE LAW
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 11 OF THE CONVENTION6. Relying on Article 11 of the Convention, the applicant complained principally of disproportionate measures taken against him as a participant of the public assembly, namely his arrest followed by his conviction for administrative offence.
7. In the leading cases of Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan (no. 60259/11, 15 October 2015), and Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan (nos. 67360/11 and 2 others, 11 February 2016), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case (see also Hasanov and Others v. Azerbaijan, [Committee], nos. 39919/07 and 14 others, 5 September 2019).
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 this complaint. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the interference with the applicant’s freedom of assembly did not meet the requirement of lawfulness.
9. This complaint is therefore admissible and discloses a breach of Article 11 of the Convention.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW10. The applicant also raised a complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning fairness of the trial in administrative-offence proceedings against him. This complaint is covered by the well‑established case-law of the Court (see appended table). It is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that the complaint discloses a violation under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
11. In view of the above findings (see paragraphs 8-10 above), the Court considers that there is no need to deal separately with the applicant’s remaining complaints under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention concerning the lawfulness of his arrest and administrative detention and under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention concerning the alleged trial in camera and alleged lack of legal assistance by a lawyer of his own choice during his initial arrest (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 complaints under Article 6 § 1 (concerning fairness of the trial in administrative-offence proceedings) and Article 11 of the Convention admissible, and finds that there is no need to examine separately the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints;Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 11 of the Convention;Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 the Convention as regards the unfair trial in administrative-offence proceedings;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 reminder of the applicant’s claims for just satisfaction.Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 July 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Úna Ní Raifeartaigh
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Articles 6 and 11 of the Convention
(unlawful or disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies and unfair trial in
administrative-offence proceedings)
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
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]
71846/13
24/10/2013
Turkel
Ali oglu KARIMLI
1993
Demonstration held by the National Council of Democratic Forces at the “Mahsul” stadium
Baku
22/09/2013
Article 310 of the CAO
Twenty-five days’ administrative detention
Baku Court of Appeal
30/09/2013
Art. 6 (1) - lack of fair hearing - 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
(to be paid directly to representative Mr Ruslan Mustafazade’s bank account)
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.