FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 7477/15 Orkhan Pirverdi oglu ALIYEV

against Azerbaijan

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 16 January 20 20 as a Committee composed of:

Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, President, Mārtiņš Mits, Lәtif Hüseynov, judges,

and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 January 2015,

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

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant ’ s details are set out in the appended table.

The applicant was represented by Mr J. Javadov, a lawyer practising in Baku.

The applicant ’ s complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention concerning the unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him were communicated to the Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”).

THE LAW

The Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

The declaration provides 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, Mr. Orkhan ALIYEV, the sum of EUR 5,600 (five thousand and six hundred euros), for any pecuniary damage or 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 cassation appeal proceedings in order to guarantee the examination of the applicant ’ s cassation appeal in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of 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.”

The applicant was sent the terms of the Government ’ s unilateral declaration several weeks before the date of this decision. The Court has not received a response from the applicant accepting the terms of the declaration.

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

The Court has established clear and extensive case-law relating to the complaints about the violation of one ’ s right to a fair trial in proceedings which had been held in camera ( see, for example, Hummatov v. Azerbaijan , nos. 9852/03 and 13413/04, §§ 140-152, 29 November 2007, and Insanov v. Azerbaijan , no. 16133/08, §§ 165-9, 14 March 2013) and when the applicants had been deprived of the right to be present at the proceedings before the Supreme Court (see, for example, Abbasov v. Azerbaijan , no. 24271/05, § 33, 17 January 2008, and Mammad Mammadov v. Azerbaijan , no. 38073/06, § 33, 11 October 2011).

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

Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application 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 case out of the list .

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government ’ s declaration and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.

Done in English and notified in writing on 6 February 2020 .

Liv Tigerstedt Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention

Application no. Date of introduction

Applicant ’ s name

Date of birth

Representative ’ s name and location

Date of receipt of Government ’ s declaration

Date of receipt of applicant ’ s comments, if any

Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant [1]

(in euros)

7477/15

24/01/2015

Orkhan Pirverdi oglu ALIYEV

13/05/1990

Javadov Javad Yusif oglu

Baku

07/10//019

-

5,600

[1] . Plus any tax that ma y be chargeable to the applicant.