FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF MAMMADOV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
(Application no. 52158/13 and 2 others - see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
4 June 2020
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Mammadov and Others v. Azerbaijan,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, President,
Mārtiņš Mits,
Lәtif Hüseynov, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 14 May 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 applicants were represented by various lawyers (see the appended table).
3. The Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.
THE FACTS
4. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
5. The applicants complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention. The applicant in application no. 52158/13 also raised a complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.
THE LAWJOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
6. 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 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION
7. The applicants complained principally that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be ... entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.”
8. The Court observes that the general principles regarding the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial, as guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, have been stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000‑XI, and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2006‑X, with further references).
9. 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 cases.
10. 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 cases the length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention was excessive.
11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 4 OF THE CONVENTION
12. The applicant in application no. 52158/13 also complained that the domestic courts had failed to address his specific arguments in support of his release in breach of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“...Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.”
13. The Court notes that this part of application no. 52158/13 is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
14. The claims made by the applicant are similar to those made by the applicant in the case of Aliyev v. Azerbaijan (nos. 68762/14 and 71200/14, §§ 167-169, 20 September 2018).
15. Having regard to the facts of the present case and the clear similarity between these facts and those of Aliyev (cited above) on all relevant and crucial points, the Court sees no particular circumstances that could compel it to deviate from its findings in that judgment.
16. Accordingly, the applicant in application no. 52158/13 was not afforded proper judicial review of the lawfulness of his detention under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
17. 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.”
18. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Farhad Aliyev, cited above, Zayidov, cited above, and Novruz Ismayilov v. Azerbaijan, no. 16794/05, 20 February 2014), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
19. 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 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention;Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in respect of the applicant in application no. 52158/13;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;
(a) 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 4 June 2020, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv TigerstedtGabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention
(excessive length of pre-trial detention)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Date of birth
Representative’s name and location
Period of detention
Length of detention
Other complaints under well-established case-law
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant
(in euros)[1]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros)[2]
52158/13
04/11/2013
Gurban Jalal oglu Mammadov
02/04/1959
Mammadov Goshgar Gurban oglu
Sheffield
04/06/2013 to
13/12/2013
6 month(s) and 10 day(s)
Art. 5 (4) - deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention -
3,000
-
53015/14
17/07/2014
Vagif Rasul oglu Musayev
01/05/1951
Isayev Samir Nadir oglu
Baku
08/11/2013 to
14/06/2014
7 month(s) and 7 day(s)
3,000
500
62872/16
15/10/2016
Zakir Tapdig oglu Mustafayev
12/01/1977
Imanov Yalchin Jamil oglu
Sumgayit
28/03/2016 to
25/01/2017
9 month(s) and 29 day(s)
3,000
500
[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