FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 814/13
M.J. and S.M.
against Azerbaijan
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 8 April 2014 as a Chamber composed of:
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, President,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,
Erik Møse,
Dmitry Dedov, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 January 2013,
Having regard to the interim measure indicated to the respondent Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 31 January 2014 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicants’ reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicants, Mr M.J. (“the first applicant”) and Ms S.M. (“the second applicant”), are Iranian nationals, who were born in 1963 and 1970 respectively and live in Baku. The President granted the applicants’ request for their identity not to be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4). They were represented before the Court by Mr A. Aliyev and Ms K. Bayramova, lawyers practising in Azerbaijan.
The Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Asgarov.
The application had been communicated to the Government.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicants are spouses and were born in and lived in Iran until 15 June 2003 and 15 September 2006 respectively. The second applicant is the first applicant’s wife.
The first applicant is an ethnic Azerbaijani who was actively involved in political activities related to the advocacy of minority rights of ethnic Azerbaijanis in Iran. He was a member of a political party advocating for “liberation of South Azerbaijan” and unification of ethnic Azerbaijanis living in Azerbaijan and Iran. He was also a co-founder of “South Azerbaijan National Awakening Movement” founded in 1995.
According to the first applicant, he had been arrested by the Iranian security forces (Etalat) for his activities and was subjected to harassment and torture each time. He was not allowed to work and his family members were also persecuted on account of his political views.
On 15 June 2003 the first applicant came to Azerbaijan. On 23 June 2005 he applied for a refugee status and on 12 September 2005 the State Committee for Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons granted his request.
The second applicant and the applicants’ daughter were not allowed to leave Iran for two years after the first applicant had left to take refuge in Azerbaijan. On 15 September 2006 the second applicant and the applicants’ daughter arrived in Azerbaijan. In April 2007 the second applicant was also granted a refugee status. In 2007, the applicants’ second daughter was born in Azerbaijan.
The first applicant continued his activities in Azerbaijan by organizing rallies in front of the Embassy of Iran in Azerbaijan on 22 August 2007, 16 May 2012 and 6 August 2012.
On 18 June 2009 the first applicant was convicted of drug-related crimes committed in Azerbaijan and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. He served his sentence and was released on 20 October 2011.
On 25 November 2011 the State Migration Service requested the Khatai District Court to revoke the applicants’ refugee status and expel them from the country (without specifying the country of destination in the request). The State Migration Service based the request on section 15 of the Law on the Status of Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons, which provided inter alia that a person refugee status could be revoked when he or she was a threat to the national security and public order or if he or she committed a serious criminal offence.
On 13 February 2012 Khatai District Court delivered a judgment ordering the removal of the applicants’ refugee status and their expulsion. Referring to the first applicant’s recent conviction, the court held that although the first applicant had not committed any serious or especially serious criminal offence, nevertheless he had been convicted of a “less serious criminal offence” posing a threat to public order. The court did not specify on what ground it deprived the second applicant of the refugee status.
The first applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment of 13 February 2012. On 2 August 2012 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s judgment and dismissed the first applicant’s appeal. On 20 December 2012 the Supreme Court dismissed the first applicant’s appeal and upheld the lower courts’ judgments.
COMPLAINTS
The first applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that, if expelled to Iran, he would be subjected to ill-treatment by the Iranian authorities.
THE LAW
After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 31 January 2014 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. 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 has been a violation of the applicants’ rights guaranteed under Article 13 read in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention.
2. The Government are prepared to pay to the applicants the sum of EUR 1,500 ... in compensation for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 500 ... for costs and expenses. 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 [decision] 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 amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
3. The Government consider that this amount will be an adequate redress and sufficient compensation for the impugned violations and thus will constitute the final settlement of the present case. If the Court however considers that the above amount does not constitute adequate redress and sufficient compensation, the Government is ready to pay the applicants by way of just satisfaction such other amount suggested by the Court.
4. The Government of the Republic of Azerbaijan also undertake that the applicants will not be expelled to the Islamic Republic of Iran.
5. In the light of the above, the Government would suggest that the circumstances of the present case 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 (c) in fine, which would require 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 3 March 2014, the applicants indicated that they were not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration. Although they were satisfied with the acknowledgment by the Government of the violations of the rights guaranteed by the Convention, they considered that the amount of compensation to be paid under the unilateral declaration was too low.
The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular 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”.
It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application 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.
To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI).
The Court observes that the unilateral declaration contains a clear acknowledgment by the Government of the violation of the applicants’ Convention rights. It also contains an undertaking, which the Court considers crucial in the present case, that the applicants will not be expelled to Iran. Lastly, it contains an undertaking to pay the applicants a total amount of 2,000 (two thousand) euros in compensation.
Having regard to the nature of the admissions and assurances contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which the Court finds to be reasonable in the circumstances of this case – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).
Moreover, 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 could be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention and of the modalities 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.
Søren NielsenIsabelle Berro-Lefèvre
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy