FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 4257/04
by Gafar DASHDAMIROV
against Azerbaijan
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 11 December 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrA. Kovler,
MrsE. Steiner,
MrK. Hajiyev,
MrD. Spielmann,
MrS.E. Jebens,
MrG. Malinverni, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 January 2004,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together.
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Gafar Dashdamirov, is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1958 and lives in Yevlakh. The Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr C. Asgarov.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant appears to be the sole shareholder of Ekostat LTD, a company headquartered in Yevlakh (“Ekostat”).
Ekostat lodged an action against the state-owned Yevlakh Cotton-Cleaning Plant, claiming that the latter had not paid for the raw cotton delivered to it by Ekostat. By a judgment of 20 May 1997 the Economic Court ordered the Yevlakh Cotton-Cleaning Plant to pay 142,441,631 Azerbaijani manats (AZM) to Ekostat.
According to the applicant, in 1998 the defendant partially complied with the judgment and paid AZM 66,500,000. The remainder of the judgment award was not paid.
In the meantime, the Yevlakh Cotton-Cleaning Plant was privatised and transformed into Yevlakh Pambiq Open Joint Stock Company (“Yevlakh Pambiq”).
Ekostat applied to the Economic Court, asking to replace the Yevlakh Cotton-Cleaning Plant by its successor Yevlakh Pambiq as a defendant in the case. By a decision of 3 October 2000 the Economic Court granted this request and indicated Yevlakh Pambiq as the defendant against which the enforcement proceedings must be directed.
In the years 2002-2004 the applicant wrote numerous letters to the Department of Enforcement Officers of the Ministry of Justice, the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court, the Office of the President, the Chief Prosecutor’s Office and the Ombudsman complaining about the non-execution of the judgment of 20 May 1997. All of these authorities forwarded each of the applicant’s letters to the Department of the Judicial Observers and Enforcement Officers of the Ministry of Justice. The latter, in its turn, forwarded the letters to the Yevlakh Group of Judicial Observers and Enforcement Officers with the instruction to “examine the complaint and take the relevant measures in accordance with the Law on Execution of Court Judgments” and to inform the applicant about the results of such measures.
According to the information provided by the Government, the judgment of 20 May 1997 was fully enforced on 27 January 2007 when the remainder of the amount awarded by the judgment was paid to the applicant.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained about the lengthy non-enforcement of the Economic Court’s judgment of 20 May 1997.
THE LAW
By letter dated 9 March 2007 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 20 April 2007.
By letter dated 28 September 2007, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant’s observations had expired on 20 April 2007 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant’s attention was drawn to Article 37
§ 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. The applicant received this letter on 9 October 2007. However, no response has been received.
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case.
In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Søren NielsenChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy