YAGUBLU AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 53961/19
Tofig YAGUBLU against Azerbaijan
and 4 other applications

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 17 October 2024 as a Committee composed of:

 Krzysztof Wojtyczek, President,
 Lətif Hüseynov,
 Erik Wennerström, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,

Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The list of applicants and their representatives is set out in the appended table.

The applicants’ complaints under Articles 11 and 6 of the Convention concerning the unlawful or disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies and unfair trial in administrative-offence proceedings were communicated to the Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”). In application no. 53961/19, complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under Article 5 of the Convention.

THE LAW

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

After unsuccessful friendly-settlement negotiations, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

The Government acknowledged that there had been a violation of the applicants’ rights. They offered to pay the applicants the amounts detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amounts would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay these amounts within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

The payment will constitute the final resolution of the cases.

The applicants were sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declarations several weeks before the date of this decision. The Court has not received a response from the applicants.

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 applicants wish the examination of the cases to be continued (see, in particular, the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75‑77, ECHR 2003-VI).

The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the unlawful or disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies (see, for example, Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 60259/11, 15 October 2015; Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 67360/11 and 2 others, 11 February 2016; and Hasanov and Others v. Azerbaijan, [Committee], nos. 39919/07 and 14 others, 5 September 2019). It has no reasons to consider that the compensation offered by the Government constitutes inadequate or otherwise unreasonable redress for the violation of the applicants’ Convention rights (see Ryabkin and Volokitin v. Russia (dec.), nos. 52166/08 and 8526/09, §§ 49-50, 28 June 2016, and Igranov and Others v. Russia, nos. 42399/13 and 8 others, § 24, 20 March 2018, and, for a similar approach, Antovski and Others v. North Macedonia (dec.) [Committee], no. 68160/17, 8 December 2022).

Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declarations 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 applications (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 applications (Article 37 § 1 in fine).

Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declarations, the applications 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 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 arrangements 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 14 November 2024.

 Viktoriya Maradudina Krzysztof Wojtyczek
 Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Articles 11 and 6 of the Convention

(unlawful or disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies and unfair trial in

administrative-offence proceedings)

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.