NOVRUZLU AND AZIZOV v. AZERBAIJAN

THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Applications nos. 57334/15 and 22334/16
Shahin NOVRUZLU against Azerbaijan
and Mammad AZIZOV against Azerbaijan

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 2 September 2025 as a Committee composed of:

 Canòlic Mingorance Cairat, President,
 Lətif Hüseynov,
 Vasilka Sancin, judges,
and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above applications lodged on 16 November 2015 and 15 April 2016 respectively,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

1.  The applicant in application no. 57334/15, Mr Shahin Ibrahim oglu Novruzlu (“the first applicant”), is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1995 and at the material time lived in Baku. He was represented before the Court by Mr N. Karimli, a lawyer practising in Baku.

2.  The applicant in application no. 22334/16, Mr Mammad Rasim oglu Azizov (“the second applicant”), is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1992 and at the material time lived in Shaki. He was represented before the Court by Mr Kh. Bagirov and Mr F. Namazli, lawyers based in Azerbaijan.

3.  The Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Əsgərov.

4.  At the material time, the applicants were civil society activists and members of the civic movement NIDA, a non-governmental organisation established by a group of young people in February 2011.

5.  The applicants and other members of NIDA actively participated in organising and conducting a number of peaceful demonstrations. One demonstration protesting against the death of soldiers in the Azerbaijani army in non‑combat situations was scheduled for 10 March 2013.

6.  However, on 7 March 2013 the applicants were arrested by agents of the Ministry of National Security. The applicants were charged with criminal offences under various Articles of the Criminal Code, namely Article 220.1 (mass disorder) taken together with Article 28 (preparation of a crime), Article 228.3 (illegal possession of weapons, committed by an organised group) and Article 234.1 (illegal possession of a quantity of narcotic substances exceeding that necessary for personal use without intent to sell).

7.  The applicants were placed in pre-trial detention, and they remained detained until their transfer to a penal facility following their conviction.

8.  On 6 May 2014 the Baku Court of Serious Crimes found the applicants guilty on all counts and sentenced the first applicant to six years’ imprisonment and the second applicant to seven and a half years’ imprisonment.

9.  On 16 December 2014 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld that judgment.

10.  On 2 June and 15 October 2015 the Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s judgment in respect of the first and second applicants respectively.

11.  On 17 October 2014 the first applicant and on 17 March 2016 the second applicant were released from serving the remainder of their sentence after being pardoned by presidential decrees.

12.  The applicants’ arrest and detention were the subject of the Court’s judgment in Azizov and Novruzlu v. Azerbaijan (nos. 65583/13 and 70106/13, 18 February 2021) in which violations of Articles 5 and 18 of the Convention were found.

13.  Relying on Articles 6, 10 and 11 of the Convention, the applicants complained that they had been convicted on the basis of fabricated or otherwise unreliable evidence; that their right to a reasoned judgment had been violated; that their right to defend themselves through legal assistance of their own choosing had been violated; and that there had been an unlawful interference with their rights of freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly. The second applicant argued in addition that the restrictions imposed on him, purportedly in accordance with Articles 6, 10 and 11 of the Convention, had been applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by those provisions, contrary to Article 18 of the Convention.

14.  On 5 October 2020 the Government were given notice of the applicants’ complaints.

15.  On various dates after that the parties submitted to the Court their observations on the admissibility and merits of the applications.

16.  On 2 March 2023 the Government informed the Court that on 30 September 2022 the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Azerbaijan (“the Plenum”) had reopened and re-examined the criminal case against the applicants following the Court’s judgment in Azizov and Novruzlu (see paragraph 12 above). By its judgment of 30 September 2022, the Plenum quashed the applicants’ criminal convictions and discontinued the criminal prosecution against them on the “grounds of acquittal”. The Plenum stated, in particular, that “the reasoning provided by the European Court [of Human Rights] in its judgment [in the case of Azizov and Novruzlu v. Azerbaijan] makes it impossible to conclude that [the applicants’] guilt was proven”.

17.  The judgment of 30 September 2022 became final in the absence of any possibility to appeal against it.

18.  In the light of those developments, the Government submitted that the applicants could no longer be regarded as “victims” within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, that the matter had been resolved within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention and that the applications should be struck out of the Court’s list of cases.

19.  The applicants opposed the striking-out of the applications. The second applicant submitted, in particular, that he could still claim to be a “victim” of the alleged violations because while the Plenum had acquitted him, it had not recognised – either explicitly or in substance – the breaches of his rights under the Convention, which had formed the basis of his application (application no. 22334/16). The applicants also argued that no compensation had been awarded to them as separate proceedings in that regard were ongoing before the Nasimi District Court.

20.  The Government subsequently informed the Court that, by judgments of 15 and 17 March 2023, the Nasimi District Court had partially granted claims against the Ministry of Finance lodged by the second and first applicants respectively. The first‑instance court held that, following the delivery of the Plenum’s judgment of 30 September 2022, the Ministry of Finance, on behalf of the State, had to pay compensation to the applicants. The applicants were awarded 20,000 Azerbaijani manats (AZN – approximately 11,997 euros (EUR)) and AZN 36,000 (approximately EUR 21,594) respectively in respect of non‑pecuniary damage. In addition, the first applicant was awarded AZN 94,689.35 (approximately EUR 56,799) in respect of pecuniary damage (namely, for money confiscated from his home).

21.  Referring to those developments, the Government noted that the amount of compensation had been calculated on the basis of the applicants’ arrest and terms of imprisonment. They argued that the sums awarded had been adequate.

22.  The Court invited the applicants to submit their comments in relation to the developments summarised in paragraph 20 above. However, the applicants did not make any further submissions in reply.

23.  From the parties’ submissions it is not clear whether any appeal was lodged against the above-mentioned judgments of 15 and 17 March 2023.

THE LAW

24.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.

25.  The applicants maintained their arguments against the striking-out of the applications (see paragraph 19 above). The Government in turn maintained their arguments in favour of the striking-out (see paragraphs 18 and 21 above).

26.  The general principles applicable to the issue of “victim status” and the issue of striking-out under Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention (namely on the grounds that “the matter has been resolved”) have been summarised in the Court’s decision in Hasanov and Others v. Azerbaijan ((dec.), no. 2059/16 and 3 others, §§ 27-46, 12 September 2023).

27.  In the Court’s view, the applicants in the present applications have not lost their “victim status”, for the same reasons as those indicated in Hasanov and Others. The Court notes in that regard that the first applicant spent approximately one year and seven months and the second applicant approximately three years in prison before being pardoned. Moreover, it then took until 30 September 2022 for the Plenum to quash the convictions and acquit the applicants. Overall, for a period of approximately eight years and four months the applicants were considered guilty in the eyes of society. The Court also notes that the Plenum’s judgment was reasoned in a brief manner and did not expressly acknowledge any breaches of the Convention. In the absence of such an acknowledgment by the national authorities, the Court considers that it cannot declare the applications inadmissible ratione personae on the grounds that the applicants can no longer claim to be the “victims” of the alleged violations, even though the applicants were awarded some compensation (compare Hasanov and Others, cited above, §§ 33-38).

28.  Turning to the question whether in the present applications the matter can be regarded as “resolved” within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention, the Court notes that the applicants’ convictions no longer have any legal force and that the applicants were awarded compensation for damage sustained as a result of their wrongful conviction. Having regard to the individual circumstances of the applications and the Convention practice in similar cases against Azerbaijan, the Court considers that the sums awarded to the applicants at the national level (see paragraph 20 above) cannot be deemed unreasonable. It follows that the circumstances complained of directly by the applicants no longer remain and the effects of any possible violations of the Convention on account of those circumstances have been sufficiently redressed (compare Hasanov and Others, cited above, §§ 39-46).

29.  In view of the above, the Court considers that the matter has been resolved within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention and 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 under Article 37 § 1 in fine.

30.  Accordingly, the applications should be struck out of the list.

31.  The Court has the discretion to award legal costs when it strikes out an application (see Rule 43 § 4 of the Rules of Court; see also Pisano v. Italy (striking out) [GC], no. 36732/97, §§ 53-54, 24 October 2002; Ertürk v. Turkey (dec.) no. 49683/99, 4 May 2006; and Hasanov and Others, cited above, §§ 47-50).

32.  The applicants in the present applications claimed EUR 8,000 and EUR 3,000 respectively for legal fees incurred before the domestic courts and/or before the Court. Furthermore, the second applicant together with two other individuals whose applications were the subject of the Court’s decision in Hasanov and Others (namely applications nos. 22318/16 and 23171/16) jointly claimed EUR 1,680 for costs and expenses incurred by their representative for translation and postal services. In support of their claims, the first applicant submitted a contract signed by him and his representative, Mr N. Karimli, and the second applicant submitted a contract and an addendum (akt) signed by him and his representative, Mr Kh. Bagirov, a contract signed by Mr Kh. Bagirov and a translator, Ms N. Abilova, and four postal payment receipts. The applicants also requested that the awards be paid directly into the bank accounts of their respective representatives.

33.  The Government asked the Court to dismiss those claims as being unsubstantiated and excessive.

34.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award each applicant EUR 1,000 in respect of the legal services rendered by Mr N. Karimli and Mr Kh. Bagirov, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. The Court also considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 500 to the second applicant in respect of translation and postal services, plus any tax that may be chargeable to him. All the awards in respect of costs and expenses are to be paid directly into the bank accounts of the representatives, Mr N. Karimli and Mr Kh. Bagirov.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to join the applications;

Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases;

Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:

(i)  EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros) to each applicant, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them, in respect of the legal services rendered by their representatives, Mr N. Karimli and Mr Kh. Bagirov, to be paid directly into the bank accounts of the representatives;

(ii)  EUR 500 (five hundred euros) to the second applicant, plus any tax that may be chargeable to him, in respect of the translation and postal expenses incurred by Mr Kh. Bagirov, to be paid directly into the bank account of that representative;

(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement 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;

Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for costs and expenses.

Done in English and notified in writing on 25 September 2025.

 Olga Chernishova Canòlic Mingorance Cairat
 Deputy Registrar President