Search
document

MURSALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN and 10 other applications

Doc ref: 66650/13;24749/16;43327/16;62775/16;68722/16;76071/16;8051/17;8702/17;12870/17;21246/17;37696/17 • ECHR ID: 001-177543

Document date: September 11, 2017

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 7

MURSALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN and 10 other applications

Doc ref: 66650/13;24749/16;43327/16;62775/16;68722/16;76071/16;8051/17;8702/17;12870/17;21246/17;37696/17 • ECHR ID: 001-177543

Document date: September 11, 2017

Cited paragraphs only

Communicated on 11 September 2017

FIFTH SECTION

Application no 66650/13 Azad MURSALIYEV against Azerbaijan and 10 other applications (see list appended)

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants are Azerbaijani nationals. Their years of birth and places of residence are listed in the Appendix. They are represented before the Court by various lawyers practising in Azerbaijan (see Appendix).

The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

On different dates between 2012 and 2016 (see Appendix) the applicants learned that restrictions on their right to leave Azerbaijan were imposed and that they were no longer allowed to leave the country.

It appears from the documents in the case files that in all the cases the restrictions in question were imposed by the investigating authorities, in the absence of any judicial decision, within the framework of various criminal proceedings in which the applicants were not convicted, accused or suspected persons, but were questioned only as witnesses.

On various dates the applicants brought an action claiming unlawfulness of the restrictions imposed on them, either by lodging a complaint with the administrative courts, or by lodging a complaint with the ordinary courts un der the procedure concerning the review of the lawfulness of procedural actions or decisions by the prosecuting authorities under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Some of the applicants used both of th e above ‑ mentioned remedies.

By final decisions adopted on various dates, by the Supreme Court in the administrative proceedings and by the Baku Court of Appeal in the proceedings relating to the review of the lawfulness of the prosecuting authorities ’ actions and decisions, the domestic courts dismissed the applicants ’ complaints (see Appendix) . In their decisions, the above ‑ mentioned courts either refused to examine the applicants ’ complaints on the merits declaring themselves incompetent to examine such a complaint, or dismissed the complaints after having examined them on the merits.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention that their right to leave Azerbaijan was violated by travel bans imposed on them by the domestic authorities.

Relying both on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, the applicants in applications nos. 66650/13, 8051/17, 8702/17 and 12870/17, relying solely on Article 13 of the Convention, the applicants in applications nos. 62775/16, 76071/16, 21246/17 and 37696/17, and relying solely on Article 6 of the Convention, the applicants in applications nos. 43327/16 and 68722/16 complain about the violation of their rights protected under the Convention. In particular, they complain that they had no effective remedy at the domestic level and that the domestic authorities violated their right to a court by refusing to examine their complaints on the merits.

Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, t he applicant in application no. 76071/16 complains that the travel ban imposed on him had an impact on his health as he was prevented from seeing his doctors abroad despite the fact that he was in need of an eye operation which should be carried out abroad.

QUESTIONS

COMMON QUESTIONS

1. Was any restriction placed on the applicants ’ freedom to leave the territory of the respondent State, as guarante ed by Article 2 § 2 of Protocol No. 4? If so, was that restriction in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 2 § 3 of Protocol No. 4?

2. Did the applicants, except the applicant in application no. 24749/16, have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Con vention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

CASE SPECIFIC QUE STION IN RESPECT OF APPLICATION 76071/16

1. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s right to respect for his private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, as a result of the travel ban imposed on him? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?

aPPENDIX

No.

Application

no.

Lodged on

Applicant name

date of birth

place of residence

Represented by

Date on which the applicant learned about the restriction

Relevant final court decisions in the domestic proceedings

66650/13

07/10/2013

Azad Ogtay oglu MURSALIYEV

25/10/1970

Baku

2 November 2012

The Baku Court of Appeal ’ s decision of 12 April 2013

24749/16

22/04/2016

Aynura Imran gizi IMRANOVA

11/11/1976

Zardab

Samira AGAYEVA

21 November 2014

The Baku Court of Appeal ’ s decision of 22 January 2015 and the Supreme Court ’ s decision of 23 February 2016

43327/16

04/07/2016

Gular Shahin gizi MEHDIZADE

13/04/1988

Absheron

Yalchin IMANOV

12 February 2016

The Baku Court of Appeal ’ s decision of 31 May 2016

62775/16

20/10/2016

Rovshana Vagif gizi RAHIMOVA

08/07/1984

Baku

25 February 2015

The Supreme Court ’ s decision of 7 April 2016 (the applicant was provided with a copy of the decision on 18 May 2016)

68722/16

19/11/2016

Amina Fevzi gizi HAJIYEVA

16/04/1955

Baku

Agil

LAYIJOV

2016The Baku Court of Appeal ’ s decision of 4 November 2016

76071/16

29/11/2016

Annagi Bahadur oglu HAJIBEYLI

03/09/1955

Baku

Khalid BAGIROV

2014The Baku Court of Appeal ’ s decision of 11 July 2016

8051/17

29/12/2016

Izolda Heydar gizi AGAYEVA

04/09/1988

Baku

Yalchin IMANOV

21 March 2016

The Baku Court of Appeal ’ s decision of 1 July 2016

8702/17

19/01/2017

Aynura Tavakkul gizi HEYDAROVA

23/01/1981

Ganja

Fariz NAMAZLI

28 June 2016

The Baku Court of Appeal ’ s decision of 20 July 2016

12870/17

06/02/2017

Aytan Intigam gizi ALAKBAROVA

26/04/1980

Sumgayit

Fariz NAMAZLI

20 September 2015

The Baku Court of Appeal ’ s decision of 4 August 2016 and the Supreme Court ’ s decision of 28 December 2016

21246/17

07/03/2017

Azer Agagasim oglu GASIMLI

31/03/1975

Baku

Khalid BAGIROV

28 September 2016

The Baku Court of Appeal ’ s decision of 18 January 2017

37696/17

10/05/2017

Dilara Valeh gizi VALIYEVA

12/08/1958

Baku

Javad JAVADOV

2013The Baku Court of Appeal ’ s decision of 15 March 2017

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant