FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF MAMMADOV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

( Application no. 52158/13 and 2 others - see appended list )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

4 June 2020

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Mammadov and Others v. Azerbaijan ,

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

Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer , President, Mārtiņš Mits, Lәtif Hüseynov , judges, and Liv Tigerstedt , Acting Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having deliberated in private on 14 May 2020 ,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1 . The case originated in applications against Azerbaijan lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table .

2 . The applicants were represented by various lawyers (see the appended table).

3 . The Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.

THE FACTS

4 . The list of applicant s and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

5 . The applicant s complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention . The applicant in application no. 52158/13 also raised a complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.

THE LAW

6 . Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

7 . The applicant s complained principally that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long . They relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which read s as follows:

“3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be ... entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.”

8 . The Court observes that the general principles regarding the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial, as guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, have been stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, KudÅ‚a v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000 ‑ XI, and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2006 ‑ X, with further references).

9 . In the leading cases of Farhad Aliyev v. Azerbaijan (no. 37138/06, 9 November 2010), Isayeva v. Azerbaijan (no. 36229/11, 25 June 2015) and Zayidov v. Azerbaijan (no. 11948/08, 20 February 2014), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present cases.

10 . Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant cases the length of the applicant s ’ pre-trial detention was excessive.

11 . These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

12 . The applicant in application no. 52158/13 also complained that the domestic courts had failed to address his specific arguments in support of his release in breach of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

“...Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.”

13 . The Court notes that this part of application no. 52158/13 is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

14 . The claims made by the applicant are similar to those made by the applicant in the case of Aliyev v. Azerbaijan (nos. 68762/14 and 71200/14, §§ 167-169, 20 September 2018).

15 . Having regard to the facts of the present case and the clear similarity between these facts and those of Aliyev (cited above) on all relevant and crucial points, the Court sees no particular circumstances that could compel it to deviate from its findings in that judgment.

16 . Accordingly, the applicant in application no. 52158/13 was not afforded proper judicial review of the lawfulness of his detention under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.

17 . Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”

18 . Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Farhad Aliyev , cited above, Zayidov , cited above, and Novruz Ismayilov v. Azerbaijan, no. 16794/05, 20 February 2014), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

19 . The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT , UNANIMOUSLY,

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant s , within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(a) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement 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.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 4 June 2020 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Liv Tigerstedt Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention

( excessive length of pre-trial detention )

No.

Application no.

Date of introduction

Applicant ’ s name

Date of birth

Representative ’ s name and location

Period of detention

Length of detention

Other complaints under well-established case-law

Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant

(in euros) [1]

Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application

(in euros) [2]

52158/13

04/11/2013

Gurban Jalal oglu Mammadov

02/04/1959

Mammadov Goshgar Gurban oglu

Sheffield

04/06/2013 to

13/12/2013

6 month(s) and 10 day(s)

Art. 5 (4) - deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention -

3,000

-

53015/14

17/07/2014

Vagif Rasul oglu Musayev

01/05/1951

Isayev Samir Nadir oglu

Baku

08/11/2013 to

14/06/2014

7 month(s) and 7 day(s)

3,000

500

62872/16

15/10/2016

Zakir Tapdig oglu Mustafayev

12/01/1977

Imanov Yalchin Jamil oglu

Sumgayit

28/03/2016 to

25/01/2017

9 month(s) and 29 day(s)

3,000

500[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.