FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 561/12 Rashad NIFTALIYEV and Others against Azerbaijan

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 5 May 2022 as a Committee composed of:

Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President, Ivana Jelić, Kateřina Šimáčková, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 January 2012,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The list of applicants is set out in the appended table.

The applicants were represented by Mr R. Cook, Mr A. Carbonneau and Mr J. Wise, lawyers practising in the United Kingdom, France, and Georgia, respectively.

The applicants’ complaints under Article 8 (alleged violation of the right to respect for private life and home on account of an interference by the police in a private apartment of one of the applicants), Article 9 (alleged unlawful interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of religion ) and Article 14 of the Convention (alleged discrimination on the grounds of the applicants’ religious beliefs) were communicated to the Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”).

THE LAW

The Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

The declaration provided as follows:

“1. The Government of the Republic of Azerbaijan hereby wish to express – by way of unilateral declaration – their acknowledgement of the fact that there was a violation of the applicants’ rights guaranteed under the Convention.

2. The Government are prepared to pay to each applicant ... the sum of EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros) in total, for any pecuniary damage and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses incurred before the Court. 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 judgment 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 amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

3. 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.”

By a letter dated 4 March 2020, the applicants indicated that they welcomed the recognition of the violation of their Convention rights by the Government, but that they were not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration. In particular, they contended that the issues raised in the present application had not been determined by the Court in previous cases against the respondent State and that the Government’s unilateral declaration did not address the problems underlying the alleged violations of the Convention.

The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it to strike a case out of its list if:

“... for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.

Thus, it may strike out applications under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the case to be continued (see, in particular, the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75 ‑ 77, ECHR 2003-VI).

The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the domestic authorities’ interference with religious meetings held on private premises (see, for example, Kuznetsov and Others v. Russia , no. 184/02, §§ 52-75, 11 January 2007, and Krupko and Others v. Russia , no. 26587/07, §§ 42-57, 26 June 2014).

Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).

In the light of the above considerations, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine ).

Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (see Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.

Done in English and notified in writing on 25 May 2022.

Viktoriya Maradudina Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Articles 8, 9 and 14 of the Convention

Application no. Date of introduction

Applicant’s name

Year of birth

Representative’s name

Date of receipt of Government’s declaration

Date of receipt of applicants’ comments

Amount awarded for pecuniary and

non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses

per applicant

(in euros) [1]

561/12

02/01/2012

(4 applicants)

Rashad Huseyn oglu NIFTALIYEV

1987Yegana Ibrahim gizi GAHRAMANOVA

1959Rana Zulfugar gizi SADIGOVA

1960Teymur Ilyas oglu VALIYEV

1955Richard Cook

Andre Carbonneau

Jason Wise

04/02/2022

04/03/2022

3,000

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