FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 36666/11 Huseyn Agyar Oglu HUSEYNOV against Azerbaijan

The European Court of Human Rights ( First Section ), sitting on 22 October 2013 as a Committee composed of:

Erik Møse, President, Khanlar Hajiyev, Dmitry Dedov, judges, and André Wampach , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 May 2011 ,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 20 June 2013 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 Huseyn Huseynov , is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1958 and lives in Baku. He was represented before the Court by Mr S. Guliyev , a lawyer practising in Azerbaijan .

The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the continued non-enforcement of the judgment delivered in his favour and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the violation of the righ t to 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 20 June 2013 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 Azerbaijan hereby wish to express – by way of unilateral declarations – 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 Hus eyn Huseynov, the sum of EUR 3,600 (three thousand and six hundred euros ) in compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses. 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 t heir obligation to enforce the c ourt ’ s judgment delivered in the applicant ’ s favour.

In the light of above, the Government would suggest that the ci rcumstances 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. A ccordingly, the Government invite the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases.”

On 11 July 2013 , 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.

André Wampach Erik Møse Deputy Registrar President