Communicated on 11 September 2017
FIFTH SECTION
Application no 66650/13
Azad MURSALIYEV against Azerbaijan
and 10 other applications
(see list appended)
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicants are Azerbaijani nationals. Their years of birth and places of residence are listed in the Appendix. They are represented before the Court by various lawyers practising in Azerbaijan (see Appendix).
The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
On different dates between 2012 and 2016 (see Appendix) the applicants learned that restrictions on their right to leave Azerbaijan were imposed and that they were no longer allowed to leave the country.
It appears from the documents in the case files that in all the cases the restrictions in question were imposed by the investigating authorities, in the absence of any judicial decision, within the framework of various criminal proceedings in which the applicants were not convicted, accused or suspected persons, but were questioned only as witnesses.
On various dates the applicants brought an action claiming unlawfulness of the restrictions imposed on them, either by lodging a complaint with the administrative courts, or by lodging a complaint with the ordinary courts under the procedure concerning the review of the lawfulness of procedural actions or decisions by the prosecuting authorities under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Some of the applicants used both of the above‑mentioned remedies.
By final decisions adopted on various dates, by the Supreme Court in the administrative proceedings and by the Baku Court of Appeal in the proceedings relating to the review of the lawfulness of the prosecuting authorities’ actions and decisions, the domestic courts dismissed the applicants’ complaints (see Appendix). In their decisions, the above‑mentioned courts either refused to examine the applicants’ complaints on the merits declaring themselves incompetent to examine such a complaint, or dismissed the complaints after having examined them on the merits.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention that their right to leave Azerbaijan was violated by travel bans imposed on them by the domestic authorities.
Relying both on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, the applicants in applications nos. 66650/13, 8051/17, 8702/17 and 12870/17, relying solely on Article 13 of the Convention, the applicants in applications nos. 62775/16, 76071/16, 21246/17 and 37696/17, and relying solely on Article 6 of the Convention, the applicants in applications nos. 43327/16 and 68722/16 complain about the violation of their rights protected under the Convention. In particular, they complain that they had no effective remedy at the domestic level and that the domestic authorities violated their right to a court by refusing to examine their complaints on the merits.
Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant in application no. 76071/16 complains that the travel ban imposed on him had an impact on his health as he was prevented from seeing his doctors abroad despite the fact that he was in need of an eye operation which should be carried out abroad.
QUESTIONS
COMMON QUESTIONS
1. Was any restriction placed on the applicants’ freedom to leave the territory of the respondent State, as guaranteed by Article 2 § 2 of Protocol No. 4? If so, was that restriction in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 2 § 3 of Protocol No. 4?
2. Did the applicants, except the applicant in application no. 24749/16, have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
CASE SPECIFIC QUESTION IN RESPECT OF APPLICATION 76071/16
1. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, as a result of the travel ban imposed on him? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?
aPPENDIX
No.
Application
no.
Lodged on
Applicant name
date of birth
place of residence
Represented by
Date on which the applicant learned about the restriction
Relevant final court decisions in the domestic proceedings
66650/13
07/10/2013
Azad Ogtay oglu MURSALIYEV
25/10/1970
Baku
2 November 2012
The Baku Court of Appeal’s decision of 12 April 2013
24749/16
22/04/2016
Aynura Imran gizi IMRANOVA
11/11/1976
Zardab
Samira AGAYEVA
21 November 2014
The Baku Court of Appeal’s decision of 22 January 2015 and the Supreme Court’s decision of 23 February 2016
43327/16
04/07/2016
Gular Shahin gizi MEHDIZADE
13/04/1988
Absheron
Yalchin IMANOV
12 February 2016
The Baku Court of Appeal’s decision of 31 May 2016
62775/16
20/10/2016
Rovshana Vagif gizi RAHIMOVA
08/07/1984
Baku
25 February 2015
The Supreme Court’s decision of 7 April 2016 (the applicant was provided with a copy of the decision on 18 May 2016)
68722/16
19/11/2016
Amina Fevzi gizi HAJIYEVA
16/04/1955
Baku
Agil
LAYIJOV
2016
The Baku Court of Appeal’s decision of 4 November 2016
76071/16
29/11/2016
Annagi Bahadur oglu HAJIBEYLI
03/09/1955
Baku
Khalid BAGIROV
2014
The Baku Court of Appeal’s decision of 11 July 2016
8051/17
29/12/2016
Izolda Heydar gizi AGAYEVA
04/09/1988
Baku
Yalchin IMANOV
21 March 2016
The Baku Court of Appeal’s decision of 1 July 2016
8702/17
19/01/2017
Aynura Tavakkul gizi HEYDAROVA
23/01/1981
Ganja
Fariz NAMAZLI
28 June 2016
The Baku Court of Appeal’s decision of 20 July 2016
12870/17
06/02/2017
Aytan Intigam gizi ALAKBAROVA
26/04/1980
Sumgayit
Fariz NAMAZLI
20 September 2015
The Baku Court of Appeal’s decision of 4 August 2016 and the Supreme Court’s decision of 28 December 2016
21246/17
07/03/2017
Azer Agagasim oglu GASIMLI
31/03/1975
Baku
Khalid BAGIROV
28 September 2016
The Baku Court of Appeal’s decision of 18 January 2017
37696/17
10/05/2017
Dilara Valeh gizi VALIYEVA
12/08/1958
Baku
Javad JAVADOV
2013
The Baku Court of Appeal’s decision of 15 March 2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy