JALILOVA v. AZERBAIJAN

FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 1395/18
Salima JALILOVA
against Azerbaijan

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 18 January 2024 as a Committee composed of:

 Péter Paczolay, President,
 Gilberto Felici,
 Raffaele Sabato, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 December 2017,

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 applicant’s and her representative’s details are set out in the appended table.

The applicant complained under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention and Article 13 of the Convention that her right to leave Azerbaijan had been violated by the travel ban imposed on her by the domestic authorities and that she had no effective remedy at the domestic level in respect of that travel ban. She also complained under Article 18 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention that her Convention rights had been restricted for purposes other than those prescribed in the Convention.

The application was communicated to 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 Government acknowledged the violation of the applicant’s rights under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention and Article 13 of the Convention. They offered to pay the applicant the amount detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amount 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 this amount within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, 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 case.

The applicant was sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declaration several weeks before the date of this decision. The Court has not received a response from the applicant accepting the terms of the declaration.

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 applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued (see, in particular, Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (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 imposition of travel bans on witnesses in criminal proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in that regard (see Mursaliyev and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 66650/13 and 10 others, §§ 29-36 and 44-47, 13 December 2018).

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 in the part covered by the unilateral declaration (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 this part 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 (see Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the application out of the list of cases as regards the complaints under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention and Article 13 of the Convention.

The applicant also complained under Article 18 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention. Having regard to the facts of the case, the Government’s unilateral declaration and the Court’s decision to strike out the complaints under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention and Article 13 of the Convention, the Court considers that the main legal question raised in the present application has been resolved. It concludes, therefore, that there is no need to examine this part of the application (see Namazov v. Azerbaijan [Committee] (dec.), no. 23036/19, §16, 11 July 2023, and Huseynov v. Azerbaijan [Committee] (dec.), no. 71401/17, §16, 26 September 2023).

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration concerning Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention and Article 13 of the Convention and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases as regards the complaints under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention and Article 13 of the Convention in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;

Decides that there is no need to examine the remaining part of the application.

Done in English and notified in writing on 8 February 2024.

 {signature_p_1} {signature_p_2}

 Viktoriya Maradudina Péter Paczolay
 Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention and Article 13 of the Convention

(imposition of a travel ban on a witness in criminal proceedings and lack of an effective remedy in that regard)

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.