FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Applications nos. 62383/17 and 6508/18 Georgi NIKOLOV against Azerbaijan and Sevinj ABBASOVA against Azerbaijan

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 21 April 2020 as a Committee composed of:

Ganna Yudkivska , President, Yonko Grozev , Lado Chanturia , judges,

and Victor Soloveytchik , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above applications lodged on 21 August 2017 and 26 December 2017 respectively,

Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government on 19 November 2019 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

The applicant in the first case, Mr Georgi Nikolaev Nikolov , is a Bulgarian national, who was born in 1960 and lives in Varna. He was represented before the Court by Mr P. Grozev , a lawyer based in Sofia.

The applicant in the second case, Ms Sevinj Vagif gizi Abbasova , is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1989 and lives in Baku. She was represented before the Court by Mr K. Bagirov and Ms U. Aliyeva , lawyers based in Azerbaijan.

The Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Əsgərov .

The applicants complained under Article 13 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention that their right to leave the country had been violated by travel bans imposed on them by the domestic authorities.

The applications had been communicated to the Government .

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 the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 19 November 2019 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations 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.

The declarations, which had an identical content except the names of the applicants, provided as follows in their relevant part:

“ 1. Having regard to the case of Mursaliyev and Others v. Azerbaijan (nos. 66650/13 and 10 others, 13 December 2018) the Government of the Republic of Azerbaijan hereby wishes to express - by way of unilateral declaration - acknowledgement of the fact that there has been a violation of the applicant ’ s rights guaranteed under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention and Article 13 of the Convention.

2. The Government is prepared to pay to the applicant, [name of the applicant], the sum of 5,000 euros to cover any damages and costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant on this amount. 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 § 1 (c) 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. The Government considers that this amount will be an adequate redress and sufficient compensation for the impugned violations and thus, will constitute the final settlement of the present case. If, the Court however considers that the above amount does not constitute adequate redress and sufficient compensation, the Government is ready to pay to the applicant by way of just satisfaction such other amount suggested by the Court.

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 invites the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases.”

By letters of 5 December 2019 and 2 January 2020, respectively, the applicants indicated that they were not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declarations on the grounds that the amount of the compensation proposed by the Government was not sufficient. The applicant in the second case also disagreed with the content of the Government ’ s unilateral declaration, submitting that the Government had not undertaken to investigate the violation of her rights and to improve the legislation or practice concerning the imposition of travel bans. It further appears from the applicants ’ comments on the Government ’ s unilateral declarations that on unspecified dates the travel bans imposed on them were lifted.

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) 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.”

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 case to be continued.

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 (see 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).

The Court has established clear and extensive case-law in respect of Azerbaijan relating to the imposition of travel bans and the effectiveness of the domestic remedies in this regard (see Mursaliyev and Others v. Azerbaijan , nos. 66650/13 and 10 others, 13 December 2018).

Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government ’ s unilateral 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)).

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 ). The Court also points out that the decision in question is without prejudice to the Government ’ s obligation to lift the travel bans imposed on the applicants in view of the Government ’ s acknowledgement of the violation of the applicants ’ rights protected under Article 13 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, in the case where the travel bans have not yet been lifted (compare Khalil v. Azerbaijan ( dec. ), nos. 60659/08, 38175/09 and 53585/09, § 91, 6 October 2015).

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 Court ’ s list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention ( Josipović v. Serbia ( dec. ), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case s 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 unilateral 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 May 2020 .

Victor Soloveytchik Ganna Yudkivska Deputy Registrar President