Published on 3 January 2022

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 46579/14 Abbasali AHMADOV and Others against Azerbaijan and 3 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 7 December 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applicants had savings accounts at T., a private bank.

On 30 September 2008 criminal proceedings were initiated against several members of the bank’s staff under, inter alia , Article 178.3.2 (large ‑ scale fraud), Article 179.3.2 (embezzlement in very large amounts) and 308.1 (abuse of power) of the Criminal Code.

On various dates in 2008 and 2009 the applicants in application no. 46579/14 and seven of the eleven applicants in application no. 46596/14 brought civil proceedings against the bank asking for the return of the money deposited in their accounts and the accrued interest. The first ‑ instance courts partly granted their claims and ordered the return of the deposited money. Following the parties’ appeals and the bank’s request, the Baku Court of Appeal decided to suspend the proceedings pending the outcome of the above-mentioned criminal proceedings.

In those proceedings, by a judgment of 27 April 2010, the Court of Grave Crimes convicted several individuals who had been the bank’s staff members on several counts. All applicants and the bank were recognised as victims of criminal offences in those proceedings. The court found, inter alia , that the convicted persons had committed the criminal offence of fraud in respect of the applicants. It also found that the bank itself could not be held liable for paying back the applicants’ money since that money had not been transferred to its balance sheet and held that only the convicted persons were liable for damages. The court therefore ordered the convicted persons to jointly pay the damages sustained by the applicants (except the applicant in application no. 58873/14 who had asked to withdraw his name from the list of victims).

All applicants, except the applicant in application no. 58873/14, appealed in their capacity as victims. They argued that they had lawfully deposited their money with the bank and had been provided with relevant official payment receipts and savings books. They submitted that they claimed their money from the bank and asked the court to quash the first-instance court’s judgment in part. By final judgments delivered on 22 November 2013 (applications nos. 46579/14 and 46596/14) and 30 April 2014 (application no. 70718/14) the Supreme Court dismissed the applicants’ appeals.

It appears that, in the meantime, in 2011, the civil proceedings were resumed before the appellate court in the cases of the first, fourth and fifth applicants in application no. 46596/14. The court, referring to the judgment of 27 April 2010, quashed the first-instance courts’ judgments in the part awarding the three applicants’ claims. On 1 December 2011 and 30 October 2012 the Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s judgments. There is no information in the case file as regards the civil claims of the remaining four applicants in application no. 46596/14. As to the applicants in application no. 46579/14, they did not pursue their claims after the stay of their respective civil proceedings. The applicant in application no. 58873/14 lodged a separate civil claim after the withdrawal of his name from the list of victims in the criminal proceedings. This claim was also dismissed, by a final judgment of the Supreme Court of 14 February 2014, with reference to the judgment of 27 April 2010.

Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, all of the applicants complain that the domestic courts’ conclusions in the criminal proceedings violated their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. Relying on Article 6 of the Convention, the applicants in applications nos. 46579/14 and 46596/14 complain that the domestic courts’ judgments in the criminal proceedings were unreasoned. The applicant in application no. 58873/14 complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the domestic courts’ judgments delivered in the separate civil proceedings were unreasoned. The applicants in application no. 70718/14 complain also under Article 13 of the Convention that they did not have effective remedies in respect of their complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

COMMON QUESTIONS

1. Have all of the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies and complied with the six-month time-limit, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?

2. Has there been a violation of the applicants’ rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in that the domestic courts in the criminal and civil proceedings dismissed their claims against the bank?

3. Have the applicants received any sums following the final decision in the criminal proceedings against the bank’s staff members?

4. The parties are requested to provide a copy of the investigation file and, in particular, copies of civil claims lodged in the criminal proceedings, court decisions and judgments, appeals and any other relevant documents which have not been previously presented to the Court.

CASE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS IN RESPECT OF APPLICATIONS NOS. 46579/14 AND 46596/14

1. Is Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the criminal proceedings in the present cases in view of the fact that some applicants had lodged civil claims in the criminal proceedings? Was the outcome of the criminal proceedings decisive for the “civil right” in question (see, for example, Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, §§ 65 ‑ 67 and 71, ECHR 2004 ‑ I)?

2. If so, did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicants’ right to a reasoned decision respected?

CASE SPECIFIC QUESTION IN RESPECT OF APPLICATION NO. 58873/14

Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s right to a reasoned decision respected?

CASE SPECIFIC QUESTION IN RESPECT OF APPLICATION NO. 70718/14

Did the applicants have at their disposal effective domestic remedies for their complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

List of applications

No.

Application no.

Case name

Lodged on

Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence

Represented by

1.

46579/14

Ahmadov and Others v. Azerbaijan

21/05/2014

Abbasali AHMADOV 1951 Baku Kamal MADATOV 1961 Baku Elshan MADATOV 1966 Shirvan Mehraj GURBANOV 1971 Shirvan

Ruslan MUSTAFAZADE

2.

46596/14

Babayeva and Others v. Azerbaijan

21/05/2014

Madina BABAYEVA 1981 Baku Faig MAMMADOV 1943 Baku Kamala SULTANOVA 1959 Baku Rajiya ABDULLAYEVA 1983 Baku Sayyad KAZIMOV 1955 Baku Saadat IMRANOVA 1968 Baku Ramiz CHODAROV 1962 Baku Namil RZAYEV 1950 Baku Iskandar GARAYEV 1963 Baku Akbar FARAJOV 1981 Baku Abbasgulu ABLUJ 1982 Baku

Ruslan MUSTAFAZADE

3.

58873/14

Rzayev v. Azerbaijan

13/08/2014

Ilham RZAYEV 1979 Baku

Ruslan MUSTAFAZADE

4.

70718/14

Najafova and Others v. Azerbaijan

27/10/2014

Zulfiyya NAJAFOVA 1972 Baku Nazim MUSAYEV Baku Chingiz MURSALOV 1959 Baku Ruslan RUSTAMOV 1963 Baku