FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application s no s . 60659/08 , 38175/09 and 53585/09 Agil KHALIL against Azerbaijan

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 6 October 2015 as a Chamber composed of:

András Sajó, President, Elisabeth Steiner, Khanlar Hajiyev, Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, Julia Laffranque, Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above applications lodged, respectively, on 24 November 2008, 19 June 2009 and 9 September 2009,

Having regard to the decision to join the applications,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 16 September 2014, as amended on 1 April 2015, requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the applicant ’ s reply to that declaration,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1. The applicant, Mr Agil Khalil, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1983 and lives in Paris. He was represented before the Court by Mr E. Sadigov and Mr R. Hajili, lawyers practising in Azerbaijan. The Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Asgarov.

2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

3. At the time of the events described below, the applicant was a journalist working for the Azadliq newspaper.

A. The applicant ’ s alleged ill-treatment on 22 February 2008

1. The applicant ’ s version of the events

4. On 22 February 2008 the applicant went to an area called “Zeytun Baglari” (“Olive Gardens”) in Baku, which was managed by a private company named Zeytun Baglari KFT, to research an article on the ongoing cutting down of olive trees. The applicant took photographs of the trees that had been cut down and conversed with people working at the site.

5. Two men approached the applicant and asked him to identify himself. He presented his press card and stated that he was writing an article about the cutting down of olive trees. One of the men then slapped the applicant on the neck and punched him. The applicant fell to the ground and the other man kicked him in the chest and head. He also stepped on the applicant ’ s right hand. The two men also tried to strangle the applicant with the cable of his camera.

6. According to the applicant, in order to stop the men beating him up, he said that he would give them the photographs. When the attack stopped, the applicant managed to stand up and flee.

7. The assault was observed by a group of teenagers who filmed it with their mobile phone cameras. The applicant also managed to take photographs of his assailants.

2. The Government ’ s version of the events

8. On 22 February 2008, while researching an article in the area called “Olive Gardens”, the applicant took photographs of two agents (A.C. and D.A.) of the MNS who were in the vicinity. They objected to their photographs being taken and asked the applicant to give them his camera. When D.A. reached out to take the camera, the applicant took a step back, fell to the ground and started shouting. The applicant then fled.

B. Institution of criminal proceedings in connection with the incident of 22 February 2008

9. On 22 February 2008 the applicant reported the incident to the police. He provided the police with the video recording of the assault and photographs of his aggressors.

10. According to the applicant, on 24 February 2008 he was invited to the Binagadi District Prosecutor ’ s Office. He was accompanied there by his lawyer and a colleague. During the meeting, the Binagadi District Prosecutor, the Head of Binagadi District Police Station no. 7 and an unidentified older man asked the applicant to withdraw his complaint and to reach an amicable solution with his attackers. The applicant refused to do so and insisted that the assailants be prosecuted.

11. On 25 February 2008 the applicant was examined by a forensic medical expert. However, he was not provided with a copy of the forensic report and was not informed of its results.

12. By a decision of 7 March 2008 an investigator at Binagadi District Police Station no. 7 refused to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the applicant ’ s beating. The applicant was not informed of this decision.

C. Stabbing of the applicant on 13 March 2008 and institution of criminal proceedings by the police

1. The applicant ’ s version of the events

13. On an unspecified date the applicant realised that, since the incident of 22 February 2008, he had been constantly followed by a person on foot and by a Mercedes car. According to the applicant, he informed the police and the Ombudsman of this.

14. On 13 March 2008 as the applicant was returning home from work he was violently attacked by two men in the street. One of the men stabbed the applicant in the chest with a knife. The depth of the wound was about five centimetres. The knife did not reach his heart. The applicant was taken to hospital by the police.

15. A criminal investigation was launched in connection with the stabbing. At that time, the applicant became aware of the investigator ’ s decision of 7 March 2008 refusing to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the incident of 22 February 2008. On 14 March 2008 this decision was overturned by the Baku City Prosecutor, and the Baku City Police Office was charged with the investigation of both incidents (the beating and the stabbing) involving the applicant.

16. On 14 March 2008 the applicant was questioned by the police about the stabbing incident.

17. On 16 March 2008 the police interviewed the three teenagers who had witnessed the incident of 22 February 2008. The police also carried out an identification parade on the basis of photographs in respect of the two persons who had beaten up the applicant on 22 February 2008. The witnesses identified A.C. and D.A (the two officers of the MNS) as the assailants. During the investigation it was also established that the director of Zeytun Baglari KFT, which managed the area where the applicant had been beaten up, was D.A. ’ s brother.

18. On 17 March 2008 the investigator ordered a new forensic medical examination of the applicant.

19. On an unspecified date the investigation of the case was removed from the police and transferred to the prosecuting authorities.

2. The Government ’ s version of the events

20. The Government did not dispute in substance the applicant ’ s version of the events but maintained that, although the applicant claimed that he had informed the police that he had been followed by an unknown person, he had not done so before 13 March 2008 and had failed to submit any evidence in support of his assertion that he had done so earlier and to clarify when and to whom he had given this information.

D. Criminal investigation by the prosecuting authorities

1. The applicant ’ s version of the events

21. On an unspecified date the applicant left Baku for his parents ’ home in Kurdemir.

22. On 3 April 2008 the applicant was asked to report to the Kurdemir District Prosecutor ’ s Office. He arrived there at around 7 p.m. on the same day. He was subjected to a body search and his mobile phone was taken away. The investigator and an officer of the prosecutor ’ s office (named E.) insulted the applicant and showed him a video recording of a person (S.S.) speaking Russian which the applicant did not understand. The investigator then stated that S.S. had said in the video recording that he had been having a homosexual relationship with the applicant and had admitted that he had stabbed the applicant. The investigator noted that the applicant ’ s stabbing had been a crime of passion by S.S.

23. The investigator said that unless the applicant gave a statement in line with the submissions of S.S., the video recording would be broadcast across all television channels. The investigator also threatened to ill-treat his parents. Meanwhile, the applicant ’ s parents were taken to the Kurdemir District Prosecutor ’ s Office, where they were also threatened. The investigator and E. continued to physically and verbally abuse the applicant, eventually forcing him to make a statement that he knew S.S.

24. At around 2 a.m. on 4 April 2008 the applicant and his parents were allowed to leave the Kurdemir District Prosecutor ’ s Office.

25. At 7 a.m. on 4 April 2008 the applicant took a bus for Baku. However, the investigator telephoned him and instructed him to get off the bus. The applicant followed the investigator ’ s instructions as he feared that the investigator might use violence against him again.

26. At around 7.30 a.m. the investigator and E. took the applicant to Baku by car. During the journey, the applicant was denied permission to contact his lawyer.

27. At around 10 a.m. the applicant was taken to the premises of the Serious Crimes Department (“the SCD”) of the Prosecutor General ’ s Office, where he was again subjected to ill-treatment. He was handcuffed and a plastic bag was put over his head. He was slapped in the face, punched in the stomach, and doors were closed on his hands.

28. The applicant was again forced by the investigator to make a formal statement that he knew S.S. At around 2 p.m., after having obtained the statement, the investigator telephoned the applicant ’ s lawyer and invited him to the SCD.

29. The applicant was again questioned, this time in the presence of his lawyer. However, the investigator did not allow the applicant ’ s lawyer to participate effectively in the interrogation. The applicant and his lawyer asked to leave the premises of the SCD but were not allowed to do so.

30. Later, a confrontation was organised between the applicant and another person, X.M., who also stated that he had had a homosexual relationship with the applicant. The applicant had stated that he did not know X.M.

31. Another meeting took place between S.S. and the applicant. During the confrontation S.S. stated that he had stabbed the applicant on 13 March 2008.

32. At around 2 a.m. on 5 April 2008 the applicant was allowed to leave the SCD.

33. On 7 April 2008 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Prosecutor General ’ s Office alleging that he had been ill-treated on the premises of the Kurdemir District Prosecutor ’ s Office and the SCD.

34. On the same day, a special programme was broadcast on the applicant ’ s alleged homosexual relationship with S.S. It was transmitted on several TV channels. The broadcast had been prepared by the Prosecutor General ’ s Office and used the video recordings of the confrontations between the applicant and other persons.

35. On 23 April 2008 the applicant lodged a new complaint with the Prosecutor General ’ s Office. He complained, in particular: that the criminal investigation concerning the incident of 22 February 2008 had been ineffective; that he had been ill-treated by the investigator; that he had been unlawfully detained in the Kurdemir District Prosecutor ’ s Office and in the SCD; and that his freedom of expression had been violated.

36. On 7 May 2008 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Nasimi District Court reiterating his previous complaints. He noted that his rights protected under Articles 3, 5, 10 and 13 of the Convention had been violated.

37. On 17 July 2008 the Nasimi District Court dismissed the applicant ’ s complaint, holding that the applicant had failed to prove that he had been ill ‑ treated by the investigator. The court further found that the investigation concerning the beating and stabbing incidents had been effective. Regarding the applicant ’ s alleged illegal detention by the investigator, the court held that the applicant had been under an obligation to cooperate with the investigation and that it could not be interpreted as deprivation of liberty.

38. On 25 July 2008 the applicant appealed against that decision, reiterating his previous complaints.

39. On 28 August 2008 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal.

2. The Government ’ s version of the events

40. Whereas the Government did not dispute the fact that the applicant had been on the premises of the Kurdemir District Prosecutor ’ s Office and the SCD on 3 and 4 April 2008, at some time together with his parents, they maintained that the applicant was not ill-treated or threatened with the ill ‑ treatment of his parents. The applicant ’ s parents came to the Kurdemir District Prosecutor ’ s Office on their own initiative and following a conversation with the investigator at around 2 a.m. on 4 April 2008 they went home together with the applicant.

41. In support of their version of the events the Government relied on the forensic medical examination of the applicant conducted between 11 and 17 April 2008, which did not reveal any sign of ill-treatment on the applicant ’ s body. The Government further relied on a record of the questioning (signed by the applicant and his lawyer) dated 4 April 2008 and submitted that although the applicant was questioned by the investigator in the presence of his lawyer, neither he nor his lawyer made any remark concerning the applicant ’ s alleged ill-treatment in the signed record of the questioning.

E. Further developments in the criminal proceedings

42. On 17 May 2008 the investigator in charge of the case decided to discontinue the criminal proceedings instituted in respect of the incident of 22 February 2008. He concluded that the MNS agents, A.C. and D.A., had not beaten up the applicant but had simply asked him to give them the photographs that he had taken. As to the enquiries into the applicant ’ s stabbing, the investigator decided to continue the investigation and to charge S.S. The investigator stated in this connection that the applicant had been stabbed by S.S., with whom he had allegedly had a homosexual relationship.

43. On an unspecified date charges were brought against S.S. before the Nasimi District Court.

44. On 15 July 2008 the Nasimi District Court convicted S.S. of stabbing the applicant and sentenced him to one and a half year ’ s imprisonment. The applicant, who was heard at the court hearing as a victim, submitted that he did not know S.S. and that he had not had a homosexual relationship with him. The applicant further claimed that he had not been stabbed by S.S. and that his stabbing had in fact been organised by the MNS.

F. The applicant ’ s attempts to leave the country

1. The applicant ’ s version of the events

45. According to the applicant, following the incident of 22 February 2008 and his stabbing on 13 March 2008, on 7 May 2008 there was an attempt to attack him in the Baku Metro. After that incident, he decided to leave Azerbaijan out of fear for his life.

46. At that time, the criminal proceedings in respect of the stabbing were still pending.

47. On 8 May 2008 the Head of the SCD of the Prosecutor General ’ s Office wrote a letter to the Head of the Anti-terrorism Centre of the MNS requesting that the applicant ’ s freedom to leave the country be restricted. He justified his request by stating that if the applicant left the country, an effective investigation could not be carried out.

48. The Head of the Anti-terrorism Centre of the MNS replied by a letter of 10 May 2008 to the Head of the SCD noting that all State border checkpoints had been told to put the applicant on their watchlists.

49. On an unspecified date the applicant bought a ticket for a flight from Baku to Istanbul scheduled for 10 May 2008.

50. The applicant arrived at Baku Heydar Aliyev Airport on the day of the flight. However, the State Border Service did not allow him to board the flight.

51. The following day the applicant made two attempts to cross the land border between Azerbaijan and Georgia in the Balakan and Zagatala regions. However, again he was not allowed to leave the country.

52. The denial of the applicant ’ s freedom to travel abroad was extensively covered by the media. In an interview published on 13 May 2008 the Head of the Press Office of the Prosecutor General ’ s Office, V.A., confirmed that the applicant had been prevented from leaving the country on 10 and 11 May 2008 because, as a victim in criminal proceedings, he was required to assist in the investigation.

53. On 18 June 2008 the applicant tried to leave Azerbaijan for France by air. Again he was not authorised to leave the country at Baku Airport.

54. Another attempt by the applicant to leave the country on 22 July 2008 also failed.

55. On 23 July 2008 the applicant finally managed to leave Azerbaijan for France.

56. In the meantime, on 23 May 2008 the applicant lodged a complaint against the Prosecutor General ’ s Office and the State Border Service, complaining of the violation of his freedom of movement. The applicant asked the court to declare unlawful the State authorities ’ actions preventing him from leaving the country and asked for compensation for the violation of his right protected under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention. In support of his claim the applicant relied on the interview with the Head of the Press Office of the Prosecutor General ’ s Office, who had confirmed that the applicant ’ s attempts to leave the country had been prevented by the State authorities.

57. On 6 June 2008 the Nasimi District Court refused to admit the applicant ’ s complaint because it did not meet the procedural requirements set out under Articles 149 and 150 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In particular, the judge held that the applicant had failed to submit the document banning his departure from the country.

58. The applicant appealed against that decision, pointing out that he had been unlawfully prevented from leaving the country. The applicant noted that his complaint was against the unlawful actions of the State authorities, and therefore the first-instance court should not have refused to admit his complaint on the grounds that he had failed to submit the document proving that his freedom of movement had been restricted.

59. On 1 August 2008 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant. The appellate court held that the first-instance court ’ s decision had been justified because the applicant had failed to submit any official documentation proving that his right to leave the country had been restricted.

60. On 19 December 2008 the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Baku Court of Appeal.

61. In the meantime, on 9 July 2008 at the trial concerning the applicant ’ s stabbing, the applicant complained that his freedom of movement had been violated. He argued that he had been unlawfully prevented from leaving the country despite the absence of any official decision in that connection.

62. In its judgment of 15 July 2008 convicting S.S. of the stabbing, the Nasimi District Court did not comment on the applicant ’ s complaint concerning the restrictions on his freedom of movement.

63. In an appeal lodged by the applicant on 21 July 2008 against the first-instance court ’ s judgment, he reiterated his complaint that the domestic authorities had unlawfully prevented him from leaving the country.

64. On 4 December 2008 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal. It held that it did not appear from the case file that any restrictions had been put on the applicant ’ s freedom of movement and that, in any case, the applicant had already left the country.

65. The applicant reiterated the same complaint in his cassation appeal.

66. On 19 March 2009 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal. The Supreme Court noted that there had been no restrictions on the applicant ’ s freedom of movement.

2. The Government ’ s version of the events

67. The Government maintained that whereas it appeared from the MNS ’ s letter of 10 May 2008 that the applicant had been placed on the watchlist at the check-points of the State borders, he had not been prohibited or in any other way prevented from leaving the country.

G. Telephone tapping and use of the applicant ’ s telephone messages in the criminal proceedings

1. The applicant ’ s version of the events

68. Following the investigator ’ s decision of 17 May 2008 to continue the investigation into the applicant ’ s stabbing and to maintain the charges against S.S., the applicant learned that the decision in question had been based largely on SMS messages allegedly sent by him to S.S. It also appears that telephone conversations between the applicant and other persons, including his colleagues, had been intercepted.

69. On 9 July 2008 at the trial concerning the applicant ’ s stabbing the applicant lodged a request with the Nasimi District Court asking the court to declare unlawful the tapping of his telephone by the investigation. He noted, in particular, that information concerning his telephone conversations and messages had been obtained by the MNS, at the request of the Yasamal District Police Office, without a court order. The applicant also claimed that some of the messages allegedly sent to S.S. had not been sent by him, but had been fabricated by the MNS.

70. In its judgment of 15 July 2008, the Nasimi District Court examined the applicant ’ s complaints concerning the tapping of his telephone and the monitoring and use of his SMS messages. The court held that the evidence in question had been lawfully obtained on the basis of a court decision as required by domestic law. However, the court did not specifically refer to the court decision authorising the telephone tap and the use of the messages in question.

71. On 21 July 2008 the applicant lodged an appeal against the Nasimi District Court ’ s judgment of 15 July 2008, claiming, inter alia , that his rights under Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention had been breached. In this connection, the applicant noted that his telephone had been unlawfully tapped by the MNS and his messages had been unlawfully used by the investigation.

72. On 4 December 2008 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal, holding that the evidence referred to by the first-instance court had been lawfully obtained. However, the appellate court did not specifically refer to the court decision which had authorised it.

73. The applicant lodged a cassation appeal against that decision, reiterating his previous complaints.

74. On 19 March 2009 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant ’ s complaint .

2. The Government ’ s version of the events

75. Whereas the Government did not dispute, in substance, the facts they maintained that the applicant ’ s telephone had not been tapped and the information examined by the domestic court concerned only the list of calls made to and from it. The Government further maintained that the interception of the applicant ’ s SMS messages had been lawful and justified.

COMPLAINTS

76. The applicant complained under Article 2 of the Convention that the State had failed in its obligation to protect his life. In particular, he alleged that despite the fact that he had informed the police that, after being attacked on 22 February 2008, he had been constantly followed by a person on foot and by a car, no action had been taken by the relevant authorities and he had been subsequently stabbed on 13 March 2008.

77. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been ill-treated by agents of the MNS on 22 February 2008 and that the domestic authorities had failed to effectively investigate these allegations. The applicant further complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been ill-treated in April 2008 by the investigator on the premises of the Kurdemir District Prosecutor ’ s Office and in the SCD, and that the domestic authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation in that respect.

78. The applicant complained under Article 5 of the Convention that his detention during the period between 7.30 a.m. on 4 April 2008 and 2 a.m. on 5 April 2008 by the investigator had amounted to an unlawful deprivation of liberty.

79. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that his right of access to court had been violated because the domestic courts had refused to admit his complaint concerning the violation of his right to freedom of movement. The applicant further complained under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention that his right to freedom of movement had been breached since the domestic authorities had unlawfully prevented him from leaving the country.

80. The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention that the MNS had unlawfully intercepted his telephone conversations and had accessed his messages without a court order.

81. The applicant complained under Article 10 of the Convention that his freedom of expression had been violated, arguing that he had been beaten by agents of the State on 22 February 2008 because of his journalistic activity. He also complained under Article 10 of the Convention that his right to freedom of expression had been violated because the State had failed to investigate effectively his stabbing on 13 March 2008. He further complained that the telephone surveillance by the MNS had violated his freedom of expression as a journalist and had been organised in order to discover his journalistic sources .

82. Relying on Article 13 in conjunction with Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention, the applicant complained that he had had no effective remedies in respect of his complaints concerning his ill-treatment by agents of the MNS and by the investigator, and his unlawful deprivation of liberty.

THE LAW

83. The Government informed the Court, by a letter of 16 September 2014, that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the applications. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

84. The text of the declaration, as amended on 1 April 2015, provided as follows:

“The Government wish to express – by way of a unilateral declaration – their acknowledgement of breaches of the rights indicated in the applicant ’ s complaints.

Having regard to the Court ’ s position with respect to affording just satisfaction to the injured party in similar cases (see, inter alia , Najafli v. Azerbaijan , Application no. 2594/07, Judgment of 2 October 2012; Rizvanov v. Azerbaijan , Application no. 31805/06, Judgment of 17 April 2012), the Government are ready to pay to the applicant a total sum of EUR 25,000 (twenty-five thousand euros), including EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros) as the compensation for costs and expenses, plus any tax may be chargeable on this amount.

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 applications, 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 applications out of its list of cases.”

85. By a letter of 18 May 2015, the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration. In particular, he submitted that, although the Government had acknowledged the violation of his rights, they had failed to clarify the measures that they would take in order to comply with the Convention obligations and to restore his violated rights. In this connection, he referred to the poor human rights record of Azerbaijan. He further disputed the amount of the compensation proposed by the Government, finding it low.

86. The Court re iterates 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) in particular enables the Court 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”.

87. It also re iterates 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 case to be continued.

88. To this end, the Court has examined the declaration carefully in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment ( Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75 ‑ 77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland ( dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and SulwiÅ„ska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007 ).

89. In examining the Government ’ s declaration, the Court is satisfied that the Government explicitly acknowledged the violation of the applicant ’ s rights indicated in his complaints. The declaration also contains an undertaking to pay him a total amount of EUR 25,000, including EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses.

90. The Court further observes that there is already well-established case-law of the Court, including regarding Azerbaijan, concerning the main complaints raised by the applicant in his applications (see, for instance, Emin Huseynov v. Azerbaijan , no. 59135/09 , §§ 49-88, 7 May 2015; Uzeyir Jafarov v. Azerbaijan , no. 54204/08 , §§ 37-72, 2 9 January 2015; Najafli v. Azerbaijan , no. 2594/07 , §§ 30-70, 2 October 2012; and Rizvanov v. Azerbaijan , no. 31805/06 , §§ 32-61, 17 April 2012).

92. The Court considers that the amount indicated in the declaration paid within three months from the date of notification of the Court ’ s decision issued in accordance with Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of a failure to settle within this period, simple interest shall be payable on the amount in question at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points.

93. Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration and their obligation set out in paragraph 91 above, 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).

94. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the the cases out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government ’ s declaration 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 29 October 2015 .

Søren Nielsen András Sajó Registrar President