Published on 27 October 2025
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 14803/20
Saleh RUSTAMOV against Azerbaijan
and 3 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 9 October 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The present applications primarily concern alleged breach of the principle nullum crimen sine lege and alleged unfairness of criminal proceedings against the applicants.
At the material time the applicants were active members and functionaries of one of the major oppositional parties, the Popular Front Party of Azerbaijan (Azərbaycan Xalq Cəbhəsi Partiyası – “the PFPA”). The second and third applicants were a member of the PFPA’s board and the chairman of the Youth Committee Assembly of the party (Gənclər Komitəsi Məclisinin sədri) respectively.
The fourth applicant is the nephew of the first applicant.
The first applicant (who is a citizen of Azerbaijan and Russia and until his arrest lived in Russia and had a small business there) made donations to the PFPA in order to help families of detained/imprisoned members of the party and organised collection of such donations in Russia. The donations were delivered to Azerbaijan not through bank transfers, but with the help of certain private persons (third parties). According to the applicants, the donations constituted around 300-600 United States dollars (USD) and maximum USD 1,200 per month.
The second, third and fourth applicants were helping to deliver the donations to the PFPA or to distribute them to the families.
On 8 May 2018, when the first applicant was visiting his extended family in Azerbaijan, he was arrested. According to him, he was arrested in Shamkir district (he was as a passenger in a car driven by his brother, together with the latter’s wife) and later taken to the Organised Crime Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (“the OCD”) in Baku; according to the official records, he was arrested in Baku.
The first applicant was subjected to a search of his person on the same day. According to official records, a package of drugs (heroin) was found on him and seized.
On 10 May 2018, the fourth applicant was arrested in Baku by officers of the OCD. According to official records, a package of drugs (heroin) was also found on him and seized. Later the fourth applicant’s car was also searched, and a package of drugs (heroin) was also found there.
The first applicant was charged with a criminal offence under Article 234.4.3 (illegal possession of drugs with an intent to sell) of the Criminal Code; and the fourth applicant, under Article 234.1 (illegal possession of drugs without an intent to sell).
On an unspecified date the first and fourth applicants were questioned about their connection to the PFPA and about the above-mentioned donations.
On 25 May 2018 the second and third applicants were arrested. These applicants were also questioned about their connection to the PFPA and about the above-mentioned donations.
On 24 May 2018 the first and fourth applicants and on 26 May 2018 the second and third applicants were charged with criminal offences under Articles 192.3.2 (large-scale illegal entrepreneurship), 193-1.3.1 (money laundering committed by organised gang or organisation) and 193-1.3.2 (large-scale money laundering) of the Criminal Code.
According to these charges, the applicants, together with certain other members of the PFPA (including the chairman of the party and the editor-in-chief of the party’s newspaper Azadlig), by organising a criminal gang, engaged in large scale illegal entrepreneurship in order to gain illegal profit, and engaged in illegal transfer of large amounts of money (around USD 25,000-30,000 or more per month) in order to organise illegal financing of the PFPA.
On 27 February 2019 the applicants were convicted as charged and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. Prohibition for three years to occupy leading governmental and municipal posts was applied to all the applicants.
The first-instance court also ordered confiscation of certain property (consisting of, inter alia, plots of land and apartments) formally registered in the names of the first applicant’s relatives, but “actually constituting the first applicant’s property”.
On 8 May 2019 the appellate court and on 25 September 2019 (in connection with the first and third applicants) and 25 February 2020 (in connection with the fourth applicant) the Supreme Court upheld the convictions. The Supreme Court reclassified the first applicant’s conviction under Article 234.4.3 of the Criminal Code (illegally holding of drugs with an intent to sell) to that under Article 234.1 of the Criminal Code (illegally holding of drugs without an intent to sell) and reduced the sentence by two months.
The applicants complain under Article 7 of the Convention that their conviction for the illegal entrepreneurship and money laundering did not have any legal basis in the domestic law or any factual basis because the first applicant did not have any business activity in Azerbaijan (his business activity in Russia was legal and registered) and his financial aid to the PFPA could not be considered as a criminal offence of money laundering under the domestic law; the acts of which they were convicted – in particular, the fact that the first applicant had been collecting donations in Russia and sending those donations to the PFPA without making bank transfers, but via private persons (apparently, through certain private persons habitually rendering such informal delivery services from Russia to Azerbaijan) – did not constitute a criminal offence under the domestic law.
Invoking Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention, the applicants complain, in particular, that their convictions were based on fabricated and otherwise unlawful evidence and that the criminal proceedings against them were in breach of various fair-trial guarantees.
Invoking Articles 11 and 18 of the Convention the second and third applicants complain that their convictions were politically motivated, aimed at creating a chilling effect of discouraging people from helping the PFPA, and were a part of multiple unlawful measures to pressure the PFPA.
The second applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that he was forced, under duress, to provide to the investigating authorities the passcode to his mobile phone, and that as a result the authorities accessed his personal communication and, without his consent, revealed it in the public court hearings.
The first applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the confiscation of the property was an unlawful interference with his property rights.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Common questions:
1. Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicants’ right to a reasoned decision and the principles of equality of arms and adversarial proceedings respected? Were the applicants afforded an adequate opportunity to contest the evidence against them, and to adduce evidence in support of their line of defence and to have such evidence assessed by the court?
2. Were the applicants able to examine witnesses against them, as required by Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention? Were the applicants able to obtain the attendance of witnesses on their behalf, as required by Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention?
3. Did the acts of which the applicants were convicted constitute a criminal offence under national law (namely, Articles 192.3.2, 193-1.3.1 and 193-1.3.2 of the Criminal Code) at the time when they were committed, as required by Article 7 of the Convention?
The parties are requested to provide documentary evidence in support of their replies and submissions, including copies of the judgments and decisions of the domestic courts, transcripts of the court hearings and the applicants’ appeals and requests.
Application no. 31028/20:
Has there been a violation of the second applicant’s right to respect for his private life or correspondence, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, on account of the search-and-seizure measure conducted during the criminal proceedings against him?
Applications nos. 31028/20 and 40726/20:
Has there been an interference with the applicants’ freedom of association, within the meaning of Article 11 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 11 § 2?
Has there been a breach of Article 18 taken in conjunction with Article 11 of the Convention? Were the restrictions imposed by the State on the applicants, purportedly for a legitimate aim pursuant to Article 11 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by that provision, contrary to Article 18 of the Convention?
Application no. 14803/20:
Has there been an interference with the first applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions contrary to the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? In particular, has the first applicant been deprived of his possessions in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
Nationality
Represented by
1.
14803/20
Rustamov v. Azerbaijan
16/03/2020
Saleh Maharram oglu RUSTAMOV
1963
Baku
Azerbaijani
(“the first applicant”)
Yalchin Jamil oglu IMANOV
Tural Tahir oglu AGAYEV
Bahruz Front oglu BAYRAMOV
2.
31028/20
Maharramov v. Azerbaijan
17/06/2020
Agil Ali oglu MAHARRAMOV
1988
Baku
Azerbaijani
(“the second applicant”)
Yalchin Jamil oglu IMANOV
Tural Tahir oglu AGAYEV
3.
40726/20
Nasirov v. Azerbaijan
06/07/2020
Ruslan Shamil oglu NASIROV
1994
Saatli
Azerbaijani
(“the third applicant”)
Fariz Mubariz oglu NAMAZLI
4.
43741/20
Rustamli v. Azerbaijan
28/09/2020
Vidadi Valeh oglu RUSTAMLI
1993
Baku
Azerbaijani
(“the fourth applicant”)
Yalchin Jamil oglu IMANOV
Tural Tahir oglu AGAYEV
Bahruz Front oglu BAYRAMOV