FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 62343/09
Sudaba JABBAROVA against Azerbaijan
and 4 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 17 September 2013 as a Committee composed of:
Julia Laffranque, President,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dmitry Dedov, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on 12 November 2009 and on 16 November 2009,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicants (see a list of the applicants appended) are Azerbaijani nationals, who were born in 1962, 1958, 1966, 1964 and 1959 respectively and live in Sumgayit. They were represented before the Court by Mr R. Mustafazade, a lawyer practising in Azerbaijan.
2. The Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Asgarov.
A. The circumstances of the case
3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
4. On 5 January 2009 all five applicants were dismissed from their jobs in the “Sintezkauchuk” plant belonging to the publicly owned “Azerkimya” Company. The applicants lodged separate court actions seeking reinstatement and payment of their salaries for the period of obliged unemployment. On different dates, the Sumgait City Court upheld the applicants’ requests and ordered their reinstatement and payment of due salaries (see table appended). On 17 June 2009 the Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant’s appeal and upheld the judgments of the first‑instance court.
5. The “Sintezkauchuk” plant lodged a cassation appeal and on different dates the Supreme Court delivered decisions dismissing the cassation appeal and upholding the judgments of 17 June 2009, except in Ms Dunyamaliyeva’s case (application no. 62385/09), where the Supreme Court quashed the judgment of 17 June 2009 and remitted the case to the Sumgayit Court of Appeal for a fresh examination. On 17 February 2010 the Sumgayit Court of Appeal upheld again the judgment of the first-instance court in favour of the applicant. Apparently, no cassation appeal was lodged against this judgment.
6. On 15 April 2010, by an order of the “Sintezkauchuk” plant the applicants were reinstated in their positions and their salary for the period of obliged unemployment was paid. On 23 June 2011 the Sumgayit City Court terminated the enforcement proceedings with respect to the applicants’ cases.
COMPLAINTS
7. The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the continued non‑enforcement of the judgments delivered in their favour.
THE LAW
8. Having regard to the similarity of the issues under the Convention in the above cases, the Court decides to join the applications and consider them in a single decision.
9. On 6 May 2011 the Court communicated to the respondent Government the complaints concerning the non-enforcement of the judgments in the applicants’ favour.
10. The Government submitted that the judgments delivered in applicants’ favour had been fully enforced on 15 April 2010. The applicants were reinstated to their positions and paid their salary for the period of obliged unemployment. The Government argued that, as the judgments were enforced within the period of less than one year after the relevant judgments of the Court of Appeal, the applicants cannot claim to be victims of the alleged violations. Accordingly, they invited the Court to declare the applications inadmissible.
11. The applicants confirmed that the judgments had been enforced on 15 April 2010. Nevertheless, they requested the Court to order the payment of a total amount of EUR 194 to each applicant for the losses suffered as a result of inflation.
12. The Court observes, and it is not contested by the parties, that the court judgments were executed in full. It further recalls that a delay in the execution of a judgment may be justified in particular circumstances (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 35, ECHR 2002-III, and Timofeyev v. Russia, no. 58263/00, § 37, 23 October 2003). In the present case the overall period during which each court judgment remained unenforced was less than a year, which does not appear excessive (see Grishchenko v. Russia (dec.), no. 75907/01, 8 July 2004 and Presnyakov v. Russia (dec.), no. 41145/02, 10 November 2005).
13. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court finds that the judgments were enforced within a reasonable time. It follows that the applications are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to join the applications;
Declares the applications inadmissible.
André WampachJulia Laffranque
Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
No.
Application
no.
Lodged on
Applicant name
Date of first-instance judgment
Date of the Court of Appeal’s judgments
Date of the final judgments
62343/09
12/11/2009
Sudaba JABBAROVA
08/07/1962
Sumgayit
The Sumgayit City Court’s judgment of 5 March 2009
The Sumgayit Court of Appeal’s judgment of 17 June 2009
The Supreme Court’s judgment of 23 February 2010
62372/09
12/11/2009
Maleyka GAYIBKHANOVA
10/01/1958
Sumgayit
The Sumgayit City Court’s judgment of 5 March 2009
The Sumgayit Court of Appeal’s judgment of 17 June 2009
The Supreme Court’s judgment of 3 March 2010
62385/09
12/11/2009
Susan DUNYAMALIYEVA
18/03/1966
Sumgayit
The Sumgayit City Court’s judgment of 3 March 2009
The Sumgayit Court of Appeal’s judgment of 17 June 2009
The Sumgayit Court of Appeal’s judgment of 17 February 2010
62397/09
12/11/2009
Sabira TAHIROVA
05/07/1964
Sumgayit
The Sumgayit City Court’s judgment of 4 March 2009
The Sumgayit Court of Appeal’s judgment of 17 June 2009
The Supreme Court’s judgment of 10 February 2010
62678/09
16/11/2009
Shahnaz YAGUBOVA
17/11/1959
Sumgayit
The Sumgayit City Court’s judgment of 27 February 2009
The Sumgayit Court of Appeal’s judgment of 17 June 2009
The Supreme Court’s judgment of 10 February 2010
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy