FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 71032/12
Sadullah Eren GENC and Others
against Azerbaijan
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 21 January 2021 as a Committee composed of:
Ganna Yudkivska, President,
Ivana Jelić,
Arnfinn Bårdsen, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 October 2012,
Having regard to the decision to give notice to the Turkish Government of their right to intervene in the proceedings in respect of the applicants’ complaints (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 1 of the Rules of Court), of which they did not avail themselves,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The list of applicants is set out in the appended table.
The applicants were represented by Mr R. Mustafazade, a lawyer based in Azerbaijan.
The applicants’ complaints under Article 5 (alleged unlawful arrest and detention in excess of time permitted under the domestic legislation), Article 6 (alleged infringement of their right to a fair trial on account of the failure of the domestic authorities to provide them with an interpreter and a lawyer) and Article 9 of the Convention (alleged unlawful interference of domestic authorities with their right to freedom of religion) were communicated to the Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”).
THE LAW
The Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The declaration provided as follows:
1. The Government of the Republic of Azerbaijan hereby wish to express – by way of unilateral declaration – their acknowledgement of the fact that there was a violation of the applicants’ rights guaranteed under the Convention.
2. The Government are prepared to pay each applicant, the sum of EUR 4,000 (four thousand euros) in total, for any pecuniary damage and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses incurred before the Court. This sum shall be free of any tax that may be applicable and shall be payable within three months from the date of the notification of the striking-out judgment of the Court pursuant to Article 37 of the European Convention on Human Rights. From the expiry of the above-mentioned period, simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
3. In the light of above, the Government would suggest that the circumstances of the present cases allow the Court to reach the conclusion that there exists ‘any other reason’, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention, justifying to discontinue the examination of the application, and that, moreover, there are no reasons of a general character, as defined in Article 37 § 1 in fine, which would require the further examination of the case by virtue of that provision. Accordingly, the Government invite the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases.
By a letter of 12 August 2020, the applicants indicated that they were not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration mainly arguing that the amount of compensation provided in the Government’s unilateral declaration was low and not correspondent to the grievances that they had suffered.
The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it to strike a case out of its list if:
“... for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application.”
Thus, it may strike out applications under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the case to be continued (see, in particular, the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75‑77, ECHR 2003-VI).
The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the domestic authorities’ interference with religious meetings held on private premises (see, for example, Kuznetsov and Others v. Russia, no. 184/02, §§ 52-75, 11 January 2007, and Krupko and Others v. Russia, no. 26587/07, §§ 47-57, 26 June 2014).
Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).
Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Done in English and notified in writing on 11 February 2021.
{signature_p_2}
Liv TigerstedtGanna Yudkivska
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Articles 5, 6 and 9 of the Convention
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Date of receipt of Government’s declaration
Date of receipt of applicants’ comments, if any
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
71032/12
13/10/2012
(3 applicants)
Sadullah Eren GENC
1982
Tugrul KİRAZ
1992
Saım SAMUR
1987
15/07/2020
13/08/2020
4,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy