FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF RAMIKHANOV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
(Application no. 31732/08 and 19 others - see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
3 May 2018
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Ramikhanov and Others v. Azerbaijan,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 12 April 2018 as a Committee composed of:
André Potocki, President,
Síofra O’Leary,
Mārtiņš Mits, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 12 April 2018,
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 or delayed 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. LOCUS STANDI IN APPLICATION No. 44281/09
6. The applicant in application no. 44281/09 died on 4 July 2011. On 5 January 2016 Ms Yegana Sadikhova, the applicant’s daughter, expressed her intention to pursue the application. The Government opposed the request.
7. The Court reiterates that where an applicant dies during the examination of a case, his or her heirs may in principle pursue the application on his or her behalf (see Ječius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 41, ECHR 2000-IX; Shiryayeva v. Russia, no. 21417/04, §§ 8-9, 13 July 2006; and Horváthová v. Slovakia, no. 74456/01, § 26, 17 May 2005). Nothing suggests that the rights the applicant sought to protect through the Convention mechanism in the present application were eminently personal and non-transferable (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 33071/96, § 1, 12 July 2001). Accordingly, the Court holds that Ms Yegana Sadikhova has standing to continue the present proceedings in her late father’s stead.
III. THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT SOME APPLICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 37 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
8. The Government submitted unilateral declarations in applications nos. 29248/11, 69191/11, 650/12 and 36164/13 which did not offer a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (Article 37 § 1 in fine). The Court rejects the Government’s request to strike the applications out and will accordingly pursue its examination of the cases (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 75, ECHR 2003-VI).
IV. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
9. The applicants complained of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given in their favour. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which reads as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by a ... tribunal ...”
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, §§ 15‑36, 3 February 2011) and Jafarli and Others v. Azerbaijan (no. 36079/06, §§ 29-54, 29 July 2010), as well as in the case of Mirzayev v. Azerbaijan (no. 50187/06, §§ 23-37, 3 December 2009), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
12. 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.
13. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
V. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
14. Some of the applicants complaining of non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given in their favour also relied on Article 13 of the Convention (applications nos. 31732/08, 501/09 and 13261/11) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (all save the applicants in the applications nos. 31732/08, 501/09, 40144/10 and 56330/10), which read as follows:
Article 13 of the Convention
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
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.”
15. As concerns the complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, according to well-established case-law, a “claim” can constitute a “possession” if it is sufficiently established to be enforceable (see, Jafarli and Others, cited above, § 56). The Court notes that the decisions in the relevant applications ordered specific action to be taken and became enforceable upon their delivery. The Court therefore considers that those decisions constitute “possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
16. Having examined all the material submitted to it and given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see, among others, Akhundov v. Azerbaijan, cited above, §§ 38‑40, and Jafarli and Others, cited above, §§ 56-58), 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.
17. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
18. Turning to the complaints under Article 13 of the Convention, the Court finds that these complaints 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.
19. However, the Court does not consider it necessary to rule on the merits of these complaints because Article 6 is lex specialis in regard to this part of the applications (see, for example, Tarverdiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 33343/03, § 62, 26 July 2007).
VI. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
20. 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.”
21. 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 made by the applicants.
22. The Court further notes that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to enforce the judgments which remain enforceable.
23. 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. Holds that in the application no. 44281/09 the applicant’s daughter, Ms Yegana Sadikhova, has standing to continue the proceedings in Mr Sadikhov’s stead;
3. Rejects the Government’s request to strike the applications nos. 29248/11, 69191/11, 650/12 and 36164/13 out of its list of cases under Article 37 § 1 of the Convention on the basis of the unilateral declarations which they submitted;
4. Declares the applications admissible;
5. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
6. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention as regards the complaints raised under this provision under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);
7. Holds that there is no need to examine the complaints under Article 13 of the Convention;
8. Holds that the respondent State is to ensure, by appropriate means, within three months, the enforcement of the pending domestic decisions referred to in the appended table;
9. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, with the exception of the amounts for costs and expenses which are to be paid into the applicants’ representatives’ bank accounts, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into New Azerbaijani manats 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;
10. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 3 May 2018, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv TigerstedtAndré Potocki
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of 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
Other complaints under well-established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary damage per applicant / household
(in euros)[1]
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage
per applicant / household
(in euros)[2]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros)[3]
31732/08
20/06/2008
Mais Ramikhanov
03/05/1970
Court of Appeal, 06/03/2007
06/03/2007
pending
More than 11 year(s) and 18 day(s)
3,600
501/09
05/12/2008
Rafig Abdullayev
15/07/1949
Court of Appeal, 08/12/2006
08/12/2006
pending
More than 11 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 16 day(s)
3,600
44281/09
28/07/2009
Sadikh Sadikhov
23/08/1918
Alizade Akif
Baku
Narimanov District Court, 28/11/2006
25/01/2007
pending
More than 11 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 27 day(s)
Prot. 1 Art. 1 - interference with peaceful enjoyment of possessions
3,600
200
34921/10
01/04/2010
Ramiz Suleymanov
26/02/1954
Mustafayev Mukhtar
Baku
Supreme Court, 18/06/2008
18/06/2008
pending
More than 9 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 6 day(s)
Prot. 1 Art. 1 - interference with peaceful enjoyment of possessions
3,600
40144/10
02/07/2010
Natig Baybalayev
14/01/1967
Baku Court of Appeal, 19/07/2006
19/07/2006
pending
More than 11 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 5 day(s)
3,600
52462/10
02/02/2012
Guloglan Badirov
Abdullayeva Sevinj
Baku
Supreme Court, 15/09/2004
15/09/2004
12/10/2013
9 year(s) and 28 day(s)
Prot. 1 Art. 1 - interference with peaceful enjoyment of possessions
3,600
200
56330/10
14/09/2010
Abdulhamid Manafov
03/12/1976
Supreme Court, 29/06/2010
29/06/2010
pending
More than 7 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 24 day(s)
3,600
13261/11
09/02/2011
Halal Shirketi
24/05/1999
Valiyeva Nargiz
Baku
Baku Economic Court No.2, 02/04/2010
02/04/2010
30/08/2012
2 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 29 day(s)
Prot. 1 Art. 1 - interference with peaceful enjoyment of possessions
1,200
17374/11
28/02/2011
Firuza Jafarova
28/07/1960
Shukurov Elkhan
Baku
Supreme Court, 24/06/2009
24/06/2009
pending
More than 8 year(s) and 9 month(s)
Prot. 1 Art. 1 - interference with peaceful enjoyment of possessions
3,600
200
29248/11
26/04/2011
Mahammad Abbasov
03/04/1962
Guliyev Sahil
Baku
Nasimi District People’s Court, 07/12/1994
15/04/2002
pending
More than 15 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 9 day(s)
Prot. 1 Art. 1 - interference with peaceful enjoyment of possessions
3,600
200
69191/11
30/10/2011
Shaban Rzayev
01/01/1938
Supreme Court, 18/05/2011
18/05/2011
19/11/2012
1 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 2 day(s)
Prot. 1 Art. 1 - interference with peaceful enjoyment of possessions
900
650/12
21/12/2011
Almas Guliyeva
02/08/1958
Aliyev Farhad
Sumgayit
Sabail District Court,
08/01/2007
08/02/2007
pending
More than 11 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 16 day(s)
Prot. 1 Art. 1 - interference with peaceful enjoyment of possessions
3,600
200
19934/12
24/02/2012
Azer Gasimov
01/07/1964
Aliyev Intigam
Sumgayit
Khazar District Court,
15/12/2009
Supreme Court, 31/03/2011
15/12/2009
31/03/2011
pending
More than 8 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 9 day(s)
03/09/2013
2 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 4 day(s)
Prot. 1 Art. 1 - interference with peaceful enjoyment of possessions
4,700
200
20280/12
12/03/2012
Arzukhanim Alizade
05/10/1950
Hajibeyli Tural
Baku
Court of Appeal, 22/10/2004
22/10/2004
pending
More than 13 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 2 day(s)
Prot. 1 Art. 1 - interference with peaceful enjoyment of possessions
3,600
200
40417/12
13/06/2012
Galib Aliyev
20/06/1955
Supreme Court, 15/12/2011
15/12/2011
17/06/2015
3 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 3 day(s)
Prot. 1 Art. 1 - interference with peaceful enjoyment of possessions
2,100
44341/12
28/06/2012
Atraba Binnatova
06/08/1965
Shahbazov Yavar
Baku
Supreme Court, 19/05/2010
19/05/2010
pending
More than 7 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 5 day(s)
Prot. 1 Art. 1 - interference with peaceful enjoyment of possessions
3,600
200
36164/13
21/05/2013
Bahram Rustamov
12/08/1943
Hasanov Jabbar Baku
Sumgayit Court of Appeal, 28/11/2011
28/01/2012
18/12/2014
2 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 21 day(s)
Prot. 1 Art. 1 - interference with peaceful enjoyment of possessions
1,500
200
71816/13
14/11/2013
Mahira Mammadova
03/08/1968
Shahverdi Agaveys
Baku
Supreme Court, 13/09/2011
13/09/2011
pending
More than 6 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 11 day(s)
Prot. 1 Art. 1 - interference with peaceful enjoyment of possessions
3,600
200
63715/14
09/09/2014
Kamil Asgarov
02/01/1963
Mustafazade Ruslan
Sumgayit
Court of Appeal, 14/02/2014
14/02/2014
pending
More than 4 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 10 day(s)
Prot. 1 Art. 1 - interference with peaceful enjoyment of possessions
1,872
1,800
200
15483/16
14/03/2016
Nabi Hasanov
10/10/1933
Mustafazade Ruslan
Sumgayit
Ganja Administrative-Economic Court, 18/04/2013
18/05/2013
pending
More than 4 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 6 day(s)
Prot. 1 Art. 1 - interference with peaceful enjoyment of possessions
1,800
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 or their representatives.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy