Lexploria

FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF RAMIKHANOV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

( Application no. 31732/08 and 19 others - see appended list )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

3 May 2018

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

In the case of Ramikhanov and Others v. 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 deliberated in private on 12 April 2018 ,

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 applications were communicated to the Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”).

THE FACTS

3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

4. The applicants complained of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions .

THE LAW

I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

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

II. LOCUS STANDI IN APPLICATION N o . 44281/09

6. The applicant in application no. 44281/09 died on 4 July 2011. On 5 January 2016 Ms Yegana Sadikhova , the applicant ’ s daughter, expressed her intention to pursue the application. The Government opposed the request.

7. The Court reiterates that where an applicant dies during the examination of a case, his or her heirs may in principle pursue the application on his or her behalf (see Ječius v. Lithuania , no. 34578/97, § 41, ECHR 2000-IX; Shiryayeva v. Russia , no. 21417/04, §§ 8-9, 13 July 2006; and Horváthová v. Slovakia , no. 74456/01, § 26, 17 May 2005). Nothing suggests that the rights the applicant sought to protect through the Convention mechanism in the present application were eminently personal and non-transferable (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic [GC], n o. 33071/96, § 1, 12 July 2001). Accor dingly, the Court holds that Ms Yegana Sadikhova has standing to continue the present proceedings in her late father ’ s stead.

III. THE GOVERNMENT ’ S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT SOME APPLICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 37 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

8. The Government submitted unilateral declarations in applications nos. 29248/11, 69191/11, 650/12 and 36164/13 which did not offer a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its e xamination of the case (Article 37 § 1 in fine ). The Court rejects the Government ’ s request to strike the applications out and will accordingly pursue its examination of the case s (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 75, ECHR 2003-VI).

IV. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

9. The applicants complained of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given in their favour. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which reads as follows:

Article 6 § 1

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by a ... tribunal ...”

10. The Court reiterates that the execution of a judgment given by any court must be regarded as an integral part of a “hearing” for the purposes of Article 6. It also refers to its case-law concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of final domestic judgments (see Hornsby v. Greece , no. 18357/91, § 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 ‑ II).

11. In the leading cases of Akhundov v. Azerbaijan (no. 39941/07 , §§ 15 ‑ 36, 3 February 2011) and Jafarli and Others v. Azerbaijan (no. 36079/06, §§ 29-54, 29 July 2010), as well as in the case of Mirzayev v. Azerbaijan (no. 50187/06 , §§ 23-37, 3 December 2009) , the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

12. 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 case the authorities did not deploy all necessary efforts to enforce fully and in due time the decisions in the applicants ’ favour.

13. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

V. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW

14. Some of the applicants complaining of non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given in their favour also relied on Article 13 of the Convention (applications nos. 31732/08, 501/09 and 13261/11) and A rticle 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (all save the applicants in the applications nos. 31732/08, 501/09, 40144/10 and 56330/10), which read as follows:

Article 13 of the Convention

“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”

15. As concerns the complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, according to well-established case-law, a “claim” can constitute a “possession” if it is sufficiently established to be enforceable (see, Jafarli and Others , cited above, § 56). T he Court notes that the decisions in the relevant applications ordered specific action to be taken and became enforceable upon their delivery. The Court therefore considers that th ose decisions constitute “possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

16. Having examined all the material submitted to it and given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see, among others, Akhundov v. Azerbaijan, cited above, § § 38 ‑ 40, and Jafarli and Others , cited above, §§ 56-58) , 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.

17. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

18. Turning to the complaints under Article 13 of the Convention, the Court finds that these complaints are not manifestly ill-founde d within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible.

19. However, the Court does not consider it necessary to rule on the merits of these complaints because Article 6 is lex specialis in regard to this part of the applications (see, for example, Tarverdiyev v. Azerbaijan , no. 33343/03, § 62, 26 July 2007).

VI. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

20. 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.”

21. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, among many others, Zulfali Huseynov v. Azerbaijan , no. 56547/10, §§ 21-37, 26 June 2012), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. It rejects any additional claims for just satisfaction made by the applicants.

22. The Court further notes that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to enforce the judgments which remain enforceable .

23. 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,

1. Decides to join the applications;

2. Holds that in the application no. 44281/09 the applicant ’ s daughter, Ms Yegana Sadikhova , has standing to continue the p roceedings in Mr Sadikhov ’ s stead;

3. Rejects the Government ’ s request to strike the applications nos. 29248/11, 69191/11, 650/12 and 36164/13 out of its list of cases under Article 37 § 1 of the Convention on the basis of the unilateral declarations which they submitted;

4. Declares the applications admissible;

5. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;

6. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention as regards the complaints raised under this provision under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table) ;

7 . Holds that there is no need to examine the complaints under Article 13 of the Convention;

8 . Holds that the respondent State is to ensure, by appropriate means, within three months, the enforcement of the pending domestic decisions referred to in the appended table;

9 . Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, with the exception of the amounts for costs and expenses which are to be paid into the applicants ’ representatives ’ bank accounts, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into New Azerbaijani manats at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

( b) 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;

10. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants ’ claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 3 May 2018 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Liv Tigerstedt André Potocki Acting D eputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

( non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions )

No.

Application no. Date of introduction

Applicant name

Date of birth /

Date of registration

Representative name and location

Relevant domestic decision

Start date of non-enforcement period

End date of non-enforcement period

Length of enforcement proceedings

Other complaints under well-established case-law

Amount awarded for pecuniary damage per applicant / household

(in euros) [1]

Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage

per applicant / household

(in euros) [2]

Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application

(in euros) [3]

31732/08

20/06/2008

Mais Ramikhanov

03/05/1970

Court of Appeal, 06/03/2007

06/03/2007

pending

More than 11 year(s) and 18 day(s)

3,600

501/09

05/12/2008

Rafig Abdullayev

15/07/1949

Court of Appeal, 08/12/2006

08/12/2006

pending

More than 11 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 16 day(s)

3,600

44281/09

28/07/2009

Sadikh Sadikhov

23/08/1918

Alizade Akif

Baku

Narimanov District Court, 28/11/2006

25/01/2007

pending

More than 11 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 27 day(s)

Prot. 1 Art. 1 - interference with peaceful enjoyment of possessions

3,600

200

34921/10

01/04/2010

Ramiz Suleymanov

26/02/1954

Mustafayev Mukhtar

Baku

Supreme Court, 18/06/2008

18/06/2008

pending

More than 9 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 6 day(s)

Prot. 1 Art. 1 - interference with peaceful enjoyment of possessions

3,600

40144/10

02/07/2010

Natig Baybalayev

14/01/1967

Baku Court of Appeal, 19/07/2006

19/07/2006

pending

More than 11 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 5 day(s)

3,600

52462/10

02/02/2012

Guloglan Badirov

Abdullayeva Sevinj

Baku

Supreme Court, 15/09/2004

15/09/2004

12/10/2013

9 year(s) and 28 day(s)

Prot. 1 Art. 1 - interference with peaceful enjoyment of possessions

3,600

200

56330/10

14/09/2010

Abdulhamid Manafov

03/12/1976

Supreme Court, 29/06/2010

29/06/2010

pending

More than 7 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 24 day(s)

3,600

13261/11

09/02/2011

Halal Shirketi

24/05/1999

Valiyeva Nargiz

Baku

Baku Economic Court No.2, 02/04/2010

02/04/2010

30/08/2012

2 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 29 day(s)

Prot. 1 Art. 1 - interference with peaceful enjoyment of possessions

1,200

17374/11

28/02/2011

Firuza Jafarova

28/07/1960

Shukurov Elkhan

Baku

Supreme Court, 24/06/2009

24/06/2009

pending

More than 8 year(s) and 9 month(s)

Prot. 1 Art. 1 - interference with peaceful enjoyment of possessions

3,600

200

29248/11

26/04/2011

Mahammad Abbasov

03/04/1962

Guliyev Sahil

Baku

Nasimi District People ’ s Court, 07/12/1994

15/04/2002

pending

More than 15 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 9 day(s)

Prot. 1 Art. 1 - interference with peaceful enjoyment of possessions

3,600

200

69191/11

30/10/2011

Shaban Rzayev

01/01/1938

Supreme Court, 18/05/2011

18/05/2011

19/11/2012

1 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 2 day(s)

Prot. 1 Art. 1 - interference with peaceful enjoyment of possessions

900

650/12

21/12/2011

Almas Guliyeva

02/08/1958

Aliyev Farhad

Sumgayit

Sabail District Court,

08/01/2007

08/02/2007

pending

More than 11 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 16 day(s)

Prot. 1 Art. 1 - interference with peaceful enjoyment of possessions

3,600

200

19934/12

24/02/2012

Azer Gasimov

01/07/1964

Aliyev Intigam

Sumgayit

Khazar District Court,

15/12/2009

Supreme Court, 31/03/2011

15/12/2009

31/03/2011

pending

More than 8 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 9 day(s)

03/09/2013

2 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 4 day(s)

Prot. 1 Art. 1 - interference with peaceful enjoyment of possessions

4,700

200

20280/12

12/03/2012

Arzukhanim Alizade

05/10/1950

Hajibeyli Tural

Baku

Court of Appeal, 22/10/2004

22/10/2004

pending

More than 13 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 2 day(s)

Prot. 1 Art. 1 - interference with peaceful enjoyment of possessions

3,600

200

40417/12

13/06/2012

Galib Aliyev

20/06/1955

Supreme Court, 15/12/2011

15/12/2011

17/06/2015

3 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 3 day(s)

Prot. 1 Art. 1 - interference with peaceful enjoyment of possessions

2,100

44341/12

28/06/2012

Atraba Binnatova

06/08/1965

Shahbazov Yavar

Baku

Supreme Court, 19/05/2010

19/05/2010

pending

More than 7 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 5 day(s)

Prot. 1 Art. 1 - interference with peaceful enjoyment of possessions

3,600

200

36164/13

21/05/2013

Bahram Rustamov

12/08/1943

Hasanov Jabbar Baku

Sumgayit Court of Appeal, 28/11/2011

28/01/2012

18/12/2014

2 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 21 day(s)

Prot. 1 Art. 1 - interference with peaceful enjoyment of possessions

1,500

200

71816/13

14/11/2013

Mahira Mammadova

03/08/1968

Shahverdi Agaveys

Baku

Supreme Court, 13/09/2011

13/09/2011

pending

More than 6 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 11 day(s)

Prot. 1 Art. 1 - interference with peaceful enjoyment of possessions

3,600

200

63715/14

09/09/2014

Kamil Asgarov

02/01/1963

Mustafazade Ruslan

Sumgayit

Court of Appeal, 14/02/2014

14/02/2014

pending

More than 4 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 10 day(s)

Prot. 1 Art. 1 - interference with peaceful enjoyment of possessions

1,872

1,800

200

15483/16

14/03/2016

Nabi Hasanov

10/10/1933

Mustafazade Ruslan

Sumgayit

Ganja Administrative-Economic Court, 18/04/2013

18/05/2013

pending

More than 4 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 6 day(s)

Prot. 1 Art. 1 - interference with peaceful enjoyment of possessions

1,800

200[1] . Plus any tax that may be chargeable.

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

[3] . Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants or their representatives .