FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 56540/10 Khagani BABAYEV against Azerbaijan

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 25 October 2018 as a Committee composed of:

Yonko Grozev, President, Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, Lәtif Hüseynov, judges,

and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 September 2010 ,

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

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant, Mr Khagani Babayev, is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1963 and lives in Baku. He was represented by Ms S. Jamalzade, a lawyer practising in Azerbaijan.

The applicant ’ s complaints under Articles 6 § 1 a nd 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning the non-enforcement of the domestic decision were communicated to the Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”) .

On an unspecified date the applicant brought an action in the Narimanov District Court, claiming the payment of salary arrears and return of an employment book to him. On 29 May 2009 the Narimanov District Court granted the applicant ’ s claims. According to the applicant, this judgment became enforceable and binding.

On 18 January 2012 t he Government informed the Court that following the respondents ’ appeal of an unspecified date, on 17 June 2011, the Baku Court of Appeal quashed the Narimanov District Court ’ s judgment of 29 May 2009. By final judgment of 11 November 2011, the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant ’ s cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court ’ s judgment. The Government provided the Court with copies of the relevant documents . The applicant did not make any submissions in that regard.

THE LAW

The Court notes that t he applicant complained of the non-enforcement of the Narimanov District Court ’ s judgment of 29 May 2009.

According to the Government, the N arimanov District Court ’ s judgment of 29 May 2009 was subsequently quashed by the higher courts. The Government submitted that the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim of the alleged violations and invited the Court to declare the application inadmissible. The applicant did not comment on this submission .

The Court notes that the Government have substantiated their claim with the relevant domestic court judgments showing that the applicant does not have an enforceable and final judgment adopted in his favour. Thus, he cannot complain of the non-enforcement of any judgment. It follows that the application is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention .

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 15 November 2018 .

Liv Tigerstedt Yonko Grozev              Acting Deputy Registrar President