FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 24097/15 Fazil SHUKUROV

against Azerbaijan

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 12 April 2018 as a Committee composed of:

André Potocki , President, Síofra O ’ Leary, Mārtiņš Mits , judges,

and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 May 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. He was represented by Ms T. Bahadirbeyli , a lawyer practising in Azerbaijan.

The applicant ’ s complaints under Article 6 § 1 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”) .

THE LAW

After unsuccessful friendly-settlement negotiations, the Government submitted a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the application.

The Government acknowledged the non-enforcement of the domestic decision. They offered to pay the applicant the amount detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amount would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court ’ s decision . The amount would be free of any tax that may be applicable . In the event of failure to pay this amount within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The Government also undertook to ensure the enforcement of the domestic decision under consideration in the present case.

The applicant informed the Court that he did not agree with the terms of the Government ’ s unilateral 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 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 (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 in respect of Azerbaijan concerning complaints relating to the non-enforcement of domestic decisions (see, for example, Akhundov v. Azerbaijan, no. 39941/07, 3 February 2011; Jafarli and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 36079/06, 29 July 2010; and Faber Firm and Jafarov v. Azerbaijan, no . 3365/08, 25 November 2010).

Noting the admission contained in the Government ’ s declaration, the undertaking to ensure the enforcement of the domestic decision, 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 3 May 2018 .

Liv Tigerstedt André Potocki Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application no. Date of introduction

Applicant name

Date of birth /

Date of registration

Representative name and location

Relevant domestic decision

Date of receipt of Government ’ s declaration

Date of receipt of applicant ’ s comments

Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage (in euros) [i]

24097/15

06/05/2015

Fazil Shukurov

07/11/1958

Bahadirbeyli Turan

Baku

The Baku Court of Appeal, 31/01/2013

05/03/2016

12/04/2017

1,500

[i] . Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant .