FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 1767/10 Husain Mitsievich ABDULVAHABOV against Azerbaijan

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 25 March 2021 as a Committee composed of:

Lado Chanturia, President, Lətif Hüseynov, Mattias Guyomar, judges,

and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above applications lodged on 19 December 2009,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

1 . The applicant, Mr Husain Mitsievich Abdulvahabov, was born in 1951. He is currently serving a sentence of life imprisonment.

2 . The applicant ’ s complaint under Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention concerning his absence from a hearing before the Supreme Court was communicated to the Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”).

3 . By a letter of 4 June 2018 the applicant was informed that notice of part of his application was given to the Government and that he needed to be represented by an advocate at the subsequent stages of the proceedings. He was invited to submit a completed authority form by 13 August 2018.

4 . On 14 September 2018 the Court received an authority form designating Ms I. Javadova as the applicant ’ s legal representative which had not been signed by the applicant himself. In an accompanying letter Ms. I. Javadova stated she had been appointed as the applicant ’ s legal representative on 5 September 2018 without providing any further clarification.

5 . On 27 September 2018 the Court received a completed authority form designating Ms I. Javadova as the applicant ’ s legal representative.

6 . On 12 October 2018 the Court received the Government ’ s observations and sent them to the applicant ’ s legal representative in order for her to submit the applicant ’ s observations in reply and just satisfaction claims on his behalf by 23 November 2018.

7 . On 9 January 2019 the Court received the applicant ’ s observations and sent them to the Government in order for them to submit their comments concerning the applicant ’ s claims for just satisfaction and any further observations they wished to make by 6 February 2019.

8 . On 6 February 2019 the Government submitted further observations on the applicant ’ s claims for just satisfaction. On that occasion the Government also challenged the authenticity of the authority form submitted by Ms Javadova.

9 . Following the Government ’ s objection to the authenticity of the authority form, by a letter dated 12 February 2019, the applicant was invited to submit his comments in that connection.

10 . On 18 March 2019 the Court received the applicant ’ s comments concerning the Government ’ s objection in respect of Ms Javadova ’ s authority to act on behalf of the applicant with accompanying contract for legal services signed between the applicant and Ms I. Javadova on 5 September 2018.

11 . By a letter of 25 April 2019 the Government challenged the authenticity of the applicant ’ s signature on the contract for legal services. In particular, the Government submitted that according to the log of the prison in which the applicant was serving his sentence, he had not been visited by any person during the period between 18 July and 16 October 2018. Moreover, according to the results of the forensic examination of the contract for legal services, the applicant ’ s signature on it was not correspondent with his signature present on several other documents previously submitted by him to the Court and was executed by some other person.

12 . By a letter of 14 May 2019 the Court requested the applicant and his representative to clarify in which circumstances the signature in question was effected and to provide supporting evidence in that respect by 11 June 2019.

13 . In the absence of any reply from the applicant, on 5 August 2019 the Court sent a letter to him and his representative by registered post informing them that the period for submission of the comments in reply had expired and that no extension had been requested. Their attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application.

14 . On 9 September 2019 the Court received a letter from the applicant in which, without making any comment on the Government ’ s submission that his signature on the authority form was not authentic, he provided a new form signed by him, designating a new representative. However, while the relevant part indicated his new representative ’ s name, it had not been signed by the latter.

15 . By a letter of 4 October 2019 the Court informed the applicant that it does not interact between applicants and their representatives and that it was the responsibility of the applicant to assign a lawyer for the proceedings before the Court and to submit an authority form, duly signed by the representative, empowering the latter to act on behalf of the applicant. He was also informed that if he had any difficulty in finding a lawyer, he could contact the local bar association. The applicant was requested to submit, by 15 November 2019, a power of attorney duly signed by him and his new representative.

16 . On 28 November 2019 the Court received a new letter from the applicant. He again enclosed an authority form with the part concerning the representative unsigned by the latter.

17 . The applicant never alleged, either explicitly or in substance that he had wished to present his own case.

THE LAW

18 . The Court notes at the outset that in accordance with Rule 36 §§ 2 and 4 of the Rules of Court the applicant should be represented before the Court following notification of the application to the Government, unless the President of the Chamber decides otherwise.

19 . In the present case the Court invited the applicant on 14 May 2019 to comment on the Government ’ s submissions that his signature on the authority form empowering Ms I. Javadova to represent him before the Court was not authentic. Despite further reminders by the Court and without making any comment in that connection, the applicant replied on 9 September and 28 November 2019 by sending the authority forms in the name of a different representative which the latter had not signed. On no occasion did the applicant submit a request to present his own case.

20 . In the light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the applicant has failed to cooperate fully in the conduct of the proceedings, as required under Rule 44 A of the Rules of Court (compare Safiullin v. Russia (dec.), no. 65526/11, 5 March 2019).

21 . Having regard to the applicant ’ s conduct and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding the respect for human rights guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols, the Court, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention, considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (see, Wills and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 49764/99, 4 March 2003, and Shanidze v. Georgia (dec.), no. 56080/10, § 22, 30 June 2015).

22 . In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Done in English and notified in writing on 22 April 2021 .

{signature_p_2}

Martina Keller Lado Chanturia Deputy Registrar President