FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Applications nos. 11108/19 and 31475/19
Azad HASANOV against Azerbaijan
and Abulfaz SADIGOV against Azerbaijan
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 29 June 2023 as a Committee composed of:
Alena Poláčková, President,
Gilberto Felici,
Raffaele Sabato, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,
Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications 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 N. Karimli, a lawyer based in Azerbaijan.
The applicants’ complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the lack of justification for pre-trial detention were communicated to the Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”).
THE LAW
Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.
After unsuccessful friendly-settlement negotiations, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The Government acknowledged a violation of the applicants’ rights guaranteed under the Convention. They offered to pay the applicants the amounts detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amounts would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay these amounts within the above‑mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
The payment will constitute the final resolution of the cases.
The applicants were sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declarations several weeks before the date of this decision. In reply, the applicants submitted that they were not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declarations. In particular, they indicated that the amounts of compensation provided for in the Government’s unilateral declarations were low.
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 cases 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 lack of justification for pre-trial detention (see, for example, Farhad Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 37138/06, 9 November 2010, and Isayeva v. Azerbaijan, no. 36229/11, 25 June 2015).
Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declarations 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 applications (Article 37 § 1 (c)).
In the light of the above considerations, 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 applications (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declarations, the applications may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (see Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Done in English and notified in writing on 20 July 2023.
Viktoriya Maradudina Alena Poláčková
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
Applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention
(lack of justification of pre-trial detention)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Date of receipt of Government’s declaration
Date of receipt of applicant’s comments
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage
per applicant
(in euros)[1]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros)[2]
11108/19
19/01/2019
Azad
Ayaz oglu
HASANOV
1984
Nemat
Karimli
Baku
20/04/2023
27/05/2023
3,000
500
31475/19
01/06/2019
Abulfaz
Niyaz oglu
SADIGOV
1988
Nemat
Karimli
Baku
20/04/2023
27/05/2023
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.