Published on 13 October 2025
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 45877/22
Aynur GANBAROVA against Azerbaijan
and 24 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 24 September 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications concern the alleged secret surveillance of the applicants through the use of Pegasus spyware[1].
The applicants are journalists, activists and human rights defenders. In 2021 investigative reports were published alleging that the governments of some countries, including several member States of the Council of Europe, had used Pegasus for targeted surveillance of their citizens. On 18 July 2021 the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (“the OCCRP”) published a list of persons in Azerbaijan, including many applicants, who might have been selected for such surveillance. Some applicants were also individually notified by the OCCRP that their phones might have been infected with Pegasus.
On various dates the applicants complained to a number of State authorities, including the Prosecutor General’s Office and the State Security Service (“the SSS”), and asked them to investigate the circumstances of their alleged surveillance and to initiate criminal proceedings. The Prosecutor General’s Office forwarded the applicants’ complaints to the SSS. It appears from the case files that some applicants were invited by the SSS to its premises to give a statement and to present evidence in support of their complaints.
On various dates the applicants lodged a complaint with the domestic courts under the judicial supervision procedure complaining about the domestic authorities’ failure to examine and act upon their complaints. In the proceedings concerning the complaints of the majority of the applicants, the courts rejected the complaints without examining them on the merits. They mainly held that the applicants had failed to present a decision refusing to commence criminal proceedings. However, in the proceedings concerning the complaints of several applicants, the domestic courts examined similar complaints on the merits and dismissed them as unsubstantiated. While doing so, they mainly held that the applicants had failed to provide any evidence proving that they had been subjected to secret surveillance. In some of those cases, relying on the letters from the SSS, the courts also noted that despite being invited by the latter to give a statement and present evidence, the applicants had failed to do so.
Relying on Article 6 of the Convention, the applicants complain of a violation of their right to a fair hearing. Relying on Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention, the applicants complain that the respondent State has breached both its negative and positive obligations as a result of (i) the unlawful interference with their rights to respect for their private life and freedom of expression and (ii) the domestic authorities’ failure to examine their complaints in that regard. They further complain under Article 13 taken in conjunction with Articles 6, 8 and 10 of the Convention that they did not have any effective remedy in respect of their complaints. Relying on Article 17 taken in conjunction with Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention, the applicants also complain that the use of Pegasus spyware by the State was aimed at the destruction of their rights to respect for their private life and freedom of expression. Lastly, they complain under Article 18 taken in conjunction with Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention that their rights were restricted for purposes other than those proscribed in the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicants exhaust the domestic remedies as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?
2. Did the applicants comply with the four-month time-limit, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?
3. Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil limb applicable to the proceedings in the present case? If so, did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
4. Has there been an interference by the State with the applicants’ right to respect for their private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, and if so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?
Did the situation complained of give rise to the State’s positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention and, if so, have they been complied with (see, mutatis mutandis, Khadija Ismayilova v. Azerbaijan, nos. 65286/13 and 57270/14, § 108-32, 10 January 2019)?
5. Has there been an interference by the State with the applicants’ freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2?
Did the situation give rise to the State’s positive obligations under Article 10 of the Convention, and if so, have they been complied with?
6. Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Articles 8 and 10, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
7. Were the acts or omissions of the State in the present case aimed at the destruction of rights and freedoms or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention, within the meaning of Article 17?
8. Were the restrictions imposed by the State in the present case, purportedly pursuant to Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by those provisions, contrary to Article 18 of the Convention?
9. Were all applicants summoned by the SSS in relation to their complaints? If so, did the applicants give a statement? Did the SSS examine the applicants’ complaints and issue any decision?
The parties are invited to provide relevant documentary evidence in support of their submissions that has not been submitted with the application forms. The parties are also invited to inform the Court about any factual developments concerning the present applications.
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
Nationality
Represented by
1.
45877/22
Ganbarova v. Azerbaijan
23/09/2022
Aynur Telman gizi GANBAROVA
1975
Baku
Azerbaijani
Padraig HUGHES
2.
45885/22
Abbasova v. Azerbaijan
23/09/2022
Sevinj Vagif gizi ABBASOVA
1989
Baku
Azerbaijani
Padraig HUGHES
3.
46268/22
Mehdizade v. Azerbaijan
23/09/2022
Gular Shahin gizi MEHDIZADE
1988
Fuzuli
Azerbaijani
Padraig HUGHES
4.
46277/22
Javadli v. Azerbaijan
23/09/2022
Natig Sabir oglu JAVADLI
1971
Sumgayit
Azerbaijani
Padraig HUGHES
5.
15231/23
Namazov v. Azerbaijan
04/04/2023
Shahvalad Abutalib oglu NAMAZOV
1969
Baku
Azerbaijani
Padraig HUGHES
6.
21555/23
Hashimli v. Azerbaijan
30/05/2023
Parviz Kamran oglu HASHIMLI
1981
Kalbajar
Azerbaijani
Padraig HUGHES
7.
22257/23
Mammadova v. Azerbaijan
02/06/2023
Aytan Amrah gizi MAMMADOVA
1981
Baku
Azerbaijani
Padraig HUGHES
8.
32771/23
Heydarova v. Azerbaijan
25/08/2023
Fizza Simran gizi HEYDAROVA
1979
Hajigabul
Azerbaijani
Padraig HUGHES
9.
33713/23
Hajiyev v. Azerbaijan
04/09/2023
Khalig Bahadir oglu HAJIYEV
1952
Baku
Azerbaijani
Padraig HUGHES
10.
33742/23
Hajiyev v. Azerbaijan
31/08/2023
Rovshan Bahadir oglu HAJIYEV
1961
Baku
Azerbaijani
Padraig HUGHES
11.
33820/23
Shikhalizade v. Azerbaijan
31/08/2023
Islam Abulaga oglu SHIKHALIZADE
1992
Baku
Azerbaijani
Padraig HUGHES
12.
33953/23
Kosayev v. Azerbaijan
31/08/2023
Elnur Ragif oglu KOSAYEV
1980
Gazakh
Azerbaijani
Padraig HUGHES
13.
38382/23
Hasanov v. Azerbaijan
19/10/2023
Ulvi Fakhraddin oglu HASANOV
1987
Baku
Azerbaijani
Padraig HUGHES
14.
38387/23
Movlamova v. Azerbaijan
19/10/2023
Fatima Gachay gizi MOVLAMOVA
2000
Baku
Azerbaijani
Padraig HUGHES
15.
38406/23
Novruzova v. Azerbaijan
19/10/2023
Fargana Tofig gizi NOVRUZOVA
1984
Baku
Azerbaijani
Padraig HUGHES
16.
41726/23
Rahimova v. Azerbaijan
23/11/2023
Elmira Agasalim gizi RAHIMOVA
1997
Baku
Azerbaijani
Saba ASHRAF
17.
7783/24
Agayeva v. Azerbaijan
14/03/2024
Samira Rafail gizi AGAYEVA
1978
PASSAU
Azerbaijani
Padraig HUGHES
18.
16772/24
Suleymanli v. Azerbaijan
12/06/2024
Bashir Suleyman oglu SULEYMANLI
1980
Yevlakh
Azerbaijani
Padraig HUGHES
19.
16779/24
Kazimli v. Azerbaijan
12/06/2024
Samir Sabir oglu KAZIMLI
1982
Baku
Azerbaijani
Padraig HUGHES
20.
16802/24
Jabrayilzade v. Azerbaijan
12/06/2024
Ramin Natig oglu JABRAYILZADE
1987
Lankaran
Azerbaijani
Padraig HUGHES
21.
17621/24
Karimov v. Azerbaijan
20/06/2024
Aziz Elkhan oglu KARIMOV
1987
Baku
Azerbaijani
Padraig HUGHES
22.
19765/24
Gahraman v. Azerbaijan
12/07/2024
Elgiz Jamal oglu GAHRAMAN
1986
Baku
Azerbaijani
Padraig HUGHES
23.
19809/24
Ibrahimov v. Azerbaijan
12/07/2024
Turan Mammad oglu IBRAHIMOV
1992
Yevlakh
Azerbaijani
Padraig HUGHES
24.
35997/24
Alakbarova v. Azerbaijan
02/12/2024
Aytan Intigam gizi ALAKBAROVA
1980
Sumgayit
Azerbaijani
Saba ASHRAF
25.
1434/25
Abiyeva v. Azerbaijan
09/01/2025
Zumrud Israfil gizi ABIYEVA
1971
Baku
Azerbaijani
Padraig HUGHES
[1] This spyware can secretly turn a mobile phone or a personal computer into a 24-hour surveillance device, enabling the operator to gain complete access to all information on the personal device.