FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 61239/17 Jabbar Amirkhan oglu JABBAROV against Azerbaijan and 7 other applications

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 17 January 2023 as a Committee composed of:

Ivana Jelić , President , Lətif Hüseynov, Erik Wennerström , judges ,

and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,

Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government on 23 February 2022 requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the applicants’ reply to those declarations,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

1. A list of the applicants and their representatives is set out in the appended table.

2. The Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Əsgərov.

3. The applicants were arrested in connection with the so-called “Nardaran events” in 2015, when members or perceived members of an unregistered religious movement called “ Müsəlman Birliyi ” (“ Muslim Union ”) were arrested in Nardaran settlement of Baku or in other cities and prosecuted for a number of grave crimes.

4. Before the Court, the applicants complained under Article 3 of the Convention that they had been subjected to ill-treatment during their arrest, transportation and (or) detention, and that the domestic authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation in that respect.

5. In addition, the applicants in applications nos. 61239/17, 72963/17, 84594/17, 17978/18, 29326/19 and 31745/19 complained under Article 13 of the Convention that they had not had any effective remedy for their complaints under Article 3 of the Convention.

6. These complaints were communicated to the Government .

THE LAW

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

8. The applicants complained about the alleged ill-treatment and the alleged absence of an effective investigation in that respect. Some of the applicants also complained about the alleged lack of effective remedies for their complaints of ill-treatment. They relied on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.

9. After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 23 February 2022 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by the applications.

10. In the declarations submitted to the Court, the Government acknowledged that there had been a violation of the applicants’ rights guaranteed by the provisions of the Convention relied on by the applicants. They offered to pay the applicants the amounts detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amounts would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay these amounts within the above ‑ mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them, from the expiry of that period, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment would constitute the final resolution of the cases.

11. The applicants were sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declarations.

12. On the various dates indicated in the appended table the applicants responded indicating that they were not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declarations. In particular, they submitted that, although the Government had acknowledged the violation of their rights, the Government had failed to clarify the measures that they would take in order to comply with the Convention obligations and to restore the violated rights. They furthermore considered the amount of compensation proposed by the Government too low.

13. The Court reiterates that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular 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 applications”.

14. It also reiterates that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application 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 cases to be continued.

15. To this end, the Court has examined the declarations in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; see also WAZA Sp. z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007, and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007).

16. The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Azerbaijan, its practice concerning complaints relating to ill ‑ treatment – the main complaint raised in the present applications (see, for example, El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 39630/09, ECHR 2012; Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09 and 2 others, ECHR 2014 (extracts); Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, ECHR 2015; Mammadov v. Azerbaijan , no. 34445/04, 11 January 2007; Jannatov v. Azerbaijan , no. 32132/07, 31 July 2014; Hilal Mammadov v. Azerbaijan , no. 81553/12, 4 February 2016; and Mammadov and Others v. Azerbaijan , no. 35432/07, 21 February 2019).

17. Having regard to the explicit acknowledgment of the violations of the applicants’ rights, as indicated in their complaints, contained in the Government’s declarations 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 applications (Article 37 § 1 (c)).

18. Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require it to continue the examination of the applications (Article 37 § 1 in fine ). In this connection, the Court also points out that the decision in question is without prejudice to the Government’s obligation to conduct an investigation in compliance with the requirements of the Convention in view of their acknowledgement of the violation of the applicants’ rights protected under the Convention (see Zarkovic and others v. Croatia (dec.), no. 75187/12, 9 June 2015, and Khalil v. Azerbaijan (dec.), nos. 60659/08 and 2 other applications, 6 October 2015).

19. Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declarations and their above ‑ mentioned obligation, the applications 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, and Khalil , cited above).

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

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to join the applications;

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

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

Done in English and notified in writing on 9 February 2023.

Liv Tigerstedt Ivana Jelić Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

No.

Application no. Date of introduction

Applicant’s name

Year of birth

Representative’s name and location

Date of receipt of Government’s declaration

Date of receipt of applicant’s comments, if any

Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses

per applicant

(in euros)

61239/17

14/08/2017

Jabbar Amirkhan oglu JABBAROV

1985Sadigov Elchin Ali oglu

Baku

23/02/2022

19/04/2022

8,000

72963/17

16/09/2017

Etibar Rasim oglu ISMAYILOV

1963Karimli Nemat Aga oglu

Baku

23/02/2022

11/04/2022

8,000

84594/17

11/12/2017

Abbas Mammadbagir oglu HUSEYNOV

1987Imanov Yalchin Jamil oglu

Sumgayit

23/02/2022

10/04/2022

8,000

17978/18

30/03/2018

Ibrahim Mammad oglu KHUDAVERDIYEV

1960Imanov Yalchin Jamil oglu

Sumgayit

23/02/2022

10/04/2022

8,000

9558/19

05/02/2019

Ramil Suliddin oglu SEYFULLAYEV

1983Humbatova Shahla Knyaz gizi

Baku

23/02/2022

10/04/2022

8,000

23033/19

23/02/2019

Mubariz Eyyub oglu IBRAHIMOV

1979Humbatova Shahla Knyaz gizi

Baku

23/02/2022

10/04/2022

8,000

29326/19

19/05/2019

Jabir Sabir oglu ALIYEV

1975Humbatova Shahla Knyaz gizi

Baku

23/02/2022

10/04/2022

8,000

31745/19

21/05/2019

Ruzi Khalig oglu ISMAYILOV

1983Humbatova Shahla Knyaz gizi

Baku

23/02/2022

10/04/2022

8,000