FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 53596/15
Rashad Agaddin oglu RAMAZANOV
against Azerbaijan
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 16 January 2020 as a Committee composed of:
Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, President,
Mārtiņš Mits,
Lәtif Hüseynov, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 October 2015,
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 details are set out in the appended table.
The applicant was represented by Mr E. Sadıgov and Mr A. Nagiyev, lawyers based in Azerbaijan.
The applicant’s complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the unfairness of the criminal proceedings in his respect were communicated to the Azerbaijani Government (“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 declaration provides, in relevant parts, as follows:
“1. The Government of the Republic of Azerbaijan hereby wishes to express – by way of unilateral declaration – acknowledgement of the fact that there has been a violation of the applicant’s rights guaranteed under the Convention.
2. The Government is prepared to pay to the applicant, Rashad Agaddin oglu Ramazanov, the sum of 3,000 euros to cover any and all pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant on these amounts. 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 striking-out judgment of the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (c) 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.
...
4. In the light of 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 in fine, which would require the further examination of the case by virtue of that provision. Accordingly, the Government invites the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases.”
By a letter of 15 October 2019, the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration. In particular, he contended that the amount of compensation provided in the Government’s unilateral declaration was low and not correspondent to the time he had spent serving the prison term. Moreover, the Government had neither expressly admitted the violations of the Convention, nor had the officials who had arrested him and unlawfully planted the narcotics on him been prosecuted.
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 relating to the complaints about the violation of one’s right to a fair trial when the conviction had been based on planted evidence (see, for example, Layijov v. Azerbaijan, no. 22062/07, §§ 62-77, 10 April 2014, and Sakit Zahidov v. Azerbaijan, no. 51164/07, §§ 46-59, 12 November 2015).
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 (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 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 case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration and of the arrangements 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.
Done in English and notified in writing on 6 February 2020.
Liv TigerstedtGabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Date of birth
Representative’s name and location
Date of receipt of Government’s declaration
Date of receipt of applicant’s comments, if any
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses
(in euros)[1]
53596/15
16/10/2015
Rashad Agaddin oglu RAMAZANOV
01/01/1982
Sadıqov Elchin Ali oglu
Baku
13/09/2019
16/10/2019
3,000
[1]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy