THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Applications nos. 4791/18 and 26324/18
Ulviya SHARIFZADE against Azerbaijan
and Violetta MIR-BAGIROVA 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 18 January 2018 and 29 May 2018 respectively,
Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government on 14 February 2025 requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the applicants’ reply to those declarations,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. The applicants’ details are set out in the appended table. They were represented before the Court by Mr F. Agayev, a lawyer based in Azerbaijan.
2. The Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Əsgərov.
3. The applicants complained under Articles 6, 8, and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention mainly about the allegedly unlawful demolition of their flats.
4. The applications had been communicated to the Government.
THE LAW
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision (Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court).
6. After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 14 February 2025 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the applications. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
7. The declarations, which have identical content except the names of the applicants, provide 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 was a violation of the applicant’s rights guaranteed in the Convention.
2. The Government are prepared to pay to the applicant, [the name of the applicant], the sum of EUR 3,500 (three thousand five hundred euros), for any non-pecuniary damage and for costs and expenses incurred before the Court. 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 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. In the meantime, the Government will take all measures to reopen the proceedings in order to guarantee the examination of the applicant’s case in accordance with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 [to] the Convention.
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 invite the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases.”
8. By a letter of 4 April 2025, the applicants indicated that they were not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declarations.
9. The Court reiterates 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 applications”.
10. It also reiterates 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 applicant wishes the examination of the cases to be continued.
11. To this end, the Court has examined the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75‑77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Sp. z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007).
12. The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Azerbaijan, its practice concerning the complaints raised in the present applications (see, for example, Akhverdiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 76254/11, §§ 61-105, 29 January 2015; Khalikova v. Azerbaijan, no. 42883/11, §§ 116-47, 22 October 2015; and Bagirova and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 37706/17 and 5 others, §§ 31-56, 31 August 2023).
13. Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declarations, as well as the scope and extent of the various undertakings given therein, together with 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 applications (Article 37 § 1 (c)).
14. Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, 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 applications (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
15. Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declarations, the applications could 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).
16. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Done in English and notified in writing on 25 September 2025.
Olga Chernishova Canòlic Mingorance Cairat
Deputy Registrar President