Lexploria

FI FTH SECTION

CASE OF ARIF ISLAMZADE v. AZERBAIJAN

( Application no. 57745/11 and 21 others ‑

see appended list )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

12 October 2017

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

In the case of Arif Islamzade v. Azerbaijan ,

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

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

Having deliberated in private on 21 September 2017 ,

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 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. THE GOVERNMENT ’ S REQUEST FOR THE CASES TO BE STRUCK OUT UNDER ARTICLE 37 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

6. In some of the applications (nos. 42843/13, 57382/14, 46520/14 and 13873/15 ), t he Government submitted unilateral declarations inviting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 of the Convention. The applicants did not comment on the Government ’ s unilateral declarations.

7. Having studied the terms of the Government ’ s unilateral declarations and finding in particular that the amount of compensation offered in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage does not constitute adequate and sufficient redress for the violations of the applicants ’ rights under the Convention (see, among many others, Gulmammadova v. Azerbaijan, no. 38798/07 , §§ 51-63, 22 April 2010, and Zulfali Huseynov v. Azerbaijan , no. 56547/10, §§ 21-37, 26 June 2012 ), the Court considers that the proposed declarations do not provide a sufficient basis for concluding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue its examination of these applications (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey ( preliminary objections ) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 75 , ECHR 2003 ‑ VI, and Magoch v. Poland , no. 29539/07 , §§ 15-20, 2 February 2010 ).

8. Therefore, the Court rejects the Government ’ s requests to strike the applications out of its list of cases under Article 37 § 1 of the Convention and will accordingly pursue its examination of the admissibility and merits of the cases.

III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION

9. The applicants complained of the non- enforcement of domestic decisions given in their favour. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which read as follows:

Article 6 § 1

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

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.”

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 ‑ 40, 3 February 2011) and Jafarli and Others v. Azerbaijan (no. 36079/ 06 , §§ 29-58, 29 July 2010), as well as in the case of Mirzayev v. Azerbaijan (no. 50187/06 , §§ 23-41, 3 December 2009) , the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

12. The Court further notes that the decisions in the present applications ordered specific action to be taken. The Court therefore considers that the decisions in question constitute “possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

13. 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.

14. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

15. 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.”

16. 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 raised by the applicants.

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

18. 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. Rejects the Government ’ s request to strike the applications nos. 42843/13, 57382/14, 46520/14 and 13873/15 out of its list of cases under Article 37 § 1 of the Convention;

3. Declares the applications admissible;

4. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning the non-enforcement of domestic decisions ;

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

6. Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the following amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into New Azerbaijani manats at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:

(i) in respect of damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable;

(ii) in respect of costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, to be paid into the applicants ’ representatives ’ bank accounts;

(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;

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

Done in English, and notified in writing on 12 October 2017 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Liv Tigerstedt Nona Tsotsoria

Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of the 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

Amount awarded for pecuniary damage per applicant/household

(in euros) [1]

Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage

(in euros) [2]

Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application

(in euros) [3]

57745/11

01/09/2011

Arif Islamzade

09/01/1949

Sumgayit Court of Appeal, 14/10/2009

14/10/2009

Pending

more than 7 years and 9 months

0

33585/13

06/05/2013

Almas Abdullayeva

22/05/1966

Mustafazade Ruslan

Sumgayit Court of Appeal, 17/09/2012

17/09/2012

Pending

more than 4 years and 10 months

2,500

3,000

200

36130/13

08/05/2013

Mazahir Bagirov

01/04/1956

Mustafazade Ruslan

Sumgayit Court of Appeal, 03/02/2009

03/02/2009

Pending

more than 8 years and 5 months

6,180

3,600

200

42843/13

17/06/2013

Namig Hajiyev

01/04/1967

Mustafazade Ruslan

Supreme Court, 19/04/2012

19/04/2012

Pending

more than 5 years and 2 months

3,570

3,600

200

53125/13

25/07/2013

Isa Rustamov

01/08/1988

Mustafazade Ruslan

Sumqayit City Court, 13/02/2013

13/03/2013

Pending

more than 4 years and 4 months

2,400

0

54494/13

05/08/2013

Rana Gasimova

01/09/1963

Mustafazade Ruslan

Sumgayit Court of Appeal, 24/07/2012

24/07/2012

Pending

more than 4 years and 11 months

3,000

0

17212/14

15/02/2014

Sohbat Gayibov

22/04/1963

Mustafazade Ruslan

Supreme Court, 20/10/1999

15/04/2002

Pending

more than 15 years and 3 months

3,600

0

17225/14

13/02/2014

Akif Khalilov

01/07/1948

Mustafazade Ruslan

Sumqayit Court of Appeal, 18/11/2009

18/11/2009

Pending

more than 7 years and 8 months

3,600

0

41015/14

19/05/2014

Aziz Agasbeyov

12/09/1956

Aliyev Akif

Surakhani District Court, 01/06/2011

01/07/2011

Pending

more than 6 years

3,600

200

46520/14

13/06/2014

Elman Shahmuradov

26/05/1961

Mustafazade Ruslan

Sumgayit City Court, 15/01/2014

15/02/2014

Pending

more than 3 years and 5 months

2,070

1,800

200

46522/14

13/06/2014

Jumshud Ismiyev

23/09/1956

Mustafazade Ruslan

Sumgayit City Court, 14/04/2000

15/04/2002

Pending

more than 15 years and 3 months

3,600

0

57382/14

06/08/2014

Najafali Babayev

25/12/1958

Nuriyev Alimammad

Baku Court of Appeal, 05/05/2010

05/05/2010

Pending

more than 7 years and 2 months

4,860

3,600

0

70660/14

20/10/2014

Tabriz Hasanov

10/08/1956

Mustafazade Ruslan

Sumgayit City Court, 23/04/2013

23/05/2013

Pending

more than 4 years and a month

2,400

200

13873/15

05/03/2015

Shahlar Guliyev

02/02/1964

Mustafazade Ruslan

Sumgayit City Court, 12/06/2012

12/07/2012

Pending

more than 5 years

3,670

3,000

200

35865/15

14/07/2015

Tahir Majidov

20/01/1996

Mustafazade Ruslan

Baku Court of Appeal, 21/07/2010

21/07/2010

Pending

more than 6 years and 11 months

3,600

200

37075/15

22/07/2015

Dashdamir Aliyev

03/08/1960

Mustafazade Ruslan

Supreme Court, 20/02/2013

20/02/2013

Pending

more than 4 years and 4 months

2,400

200

40227/15

04/08/2015

Leyla Mammadova

24/08/1961

Alizade Akif

Supreme Court, 21/07/2014

21/07/2014

Pending

more than 2 years and 11 months

1,500

200

60598/15

27/11/2015

Xaladdin Mammadov

27/01/1961

Mustafazade Ruslan

Narimanov District Court, 01/09/1998

15/04/2002

Pending

more than 15 years and 3 months

3,600

200

9308/16

04/02/2016

Kamil Najafov

13/12/1941

Mustafazade Ruslan

Surakhani District Court, 11/04/2013

11/05/2013

Pending

more than 4 years and 2 months

2,400

200

12222/16

23/02/2016

Mahammad Abbasov

03/04/1962

Baloglanov Teymur

Nasimi District Court, 27/12/1994

15/04/2002

Pending

more than 15 years

3,600

200

15499/16

03/03/2016

Salbi Bakhshaliyeva

02/09/1957

Mustafazade Ruslan

Sumgayit Court of Appeal, 07/06/2010

07/06/2010

Pending

more than 6 years and 1 month

3,600

200

17069/16

26/02/2016

Ziyadkhan Ahmadov

01/09/1957

Mustafazade Ruslan

Sumgayit City Court, 08/12/2009

08/01/2010

Pending

more than 7 years and 6 months

3,600

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.

Menu

CASE OF ARIF ISLAMZADE AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

CASE OF ARIF ISLAMZADE AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

LEXI