FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 16505/12 Nagi PIRAZI against Azerbaijan

The European Court of Human Rights ( First Section ), sitting on 22 September 2015 as a Committee composed of:

Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos , President, Khanlar Hajiyev , Dmitry Dedov , judges, and André Wampach , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 February 2012 ,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 17 September 2014 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant ’ s reply to that declaration,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant, Mr Nagi Pirazi , is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1946 and lives in Sumgayit . He was rep resented before the Court by Mr Mustafazade , a lawyer practising in Azerbaijan.

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

The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the non-enforcement of domestic judgment in his favour and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convent ion about the violation of his right t o peaceful enjoyment of his possessions as a result of non-enforcement of the judgment .

The application was communicated to the Government.

After unsuccessful friendly-settlement negotiations, by letter dated 17 September 2014 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the application.

“The Government of the Republic of Aze rbaijan hereby wish to express – by way of unilateral declaration – their acknowledgement of the fact that there has been a violation of the applicant ’ s rights guaranteed under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

The Government are prepared to pay to the applicant, Mr Nagi Pirazi , the sum of EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros) in compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. 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 [decision] 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.

The Government consider that this amount will be an adequate redress and sufficient compensation for the impugned violations. 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.

This declaration does not exempt the Government from their obligation to enforce the court ’ s judgment delivered in the applicant ’ s favour .

In the light of above, the Government would suggest that the circumstances of the present cases 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.”

On 18 October 2014 , the Court received a letter from the applicant informing the Court that he had agreed to the terms of the Government ’ s declaration.

THE LAW

The Court finds that following the applicant ’ s express agreement to the terms of the declaration made by the Government the case should be treated as a friendly settlement between the parties.

It therefore takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the application.

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 pursuant to Article 39 of the Convention.

Done in English and notified in writing on 15 October 2015 .

André Wampach Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos Deputy Registrar President