FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 69148/16 Siraj Ragif oglu KARIMLI against Azerbaijan

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 5 September 2023 as a Committee composed of:

Krzysztof Wojtyczek , President , Lətif Hüseynov, Erik Wennerström , judges , and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 69148/16) against the Republic of Azerbaijan lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 23 November 2016 by an Azerbaijani national, Mr Siraj Ragif oglu Karimli (“the applicant”), who was born in 1984 and lives in Baku, and who was represented by Mr N.A. Karimli, a lawyer practising in Baku;

the decision to give notice of the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention to the Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Əsgərov, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible;

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1. The case concerns a complaint under Article 3 of the Convention in connection with the applicant’s placement in a metal cage during his trial.

2. The applicant was arrested and later charged with drug trafficking.

3. On 16 March 2015 the Baku Assize Court found the applicant guilty under Article 234.4.3 of the Criminal Code (drug trafficking) and sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment. The Baku Court of Appeal, by a judgment of 29 May 2015, and the Supreme Court, by a decision of 24 May 2016, dismissed his appeals and upheld his conviction.

4. The applicant complained before the Court that he had been subjected to ill-treatment because he had been placed in a metal cage during the court hearings before the first-instance court and the Baku Court of Appeal.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

5. The applicant maintained his complaint.

6. The Government submitted that the applicant had been held in a metal cage only during the proceedings before the first-instance court. They also argued that the applicant lacked victim status as the treatment complained of had not reached the minimum level of severity, and that he had failed to exhaust domestic remedies.

7. The Court considers that it is not necessary to examine the objections raised by the Government since the applicant’s complaint is in any event inadmissible for the following reasons.

8. The Court reiterates that, as a rule, the six-month period runs from the date of the final decision in the process of exhaustion of domestic remedies. Where the alleged violation constitutes a continuing situation against which no domestic remedy is available, the six-month period starts to run from the end of the continuing situation (see Ülke v. Turkey (dec.), no. 39437/98, 1 June 2004). The Court has previously found that where applicants are routinely held in a metal cage in the courtroom throughout the examination of their case, this created a “continuing situation” which brought the entire period complained of within the Court’s jurisdiction (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, § 86, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).

9. The Court also notes that Azerbaijani legislation lacks domestic remedies capable of preventing such an alleged violation or its continuation or of providing adequate redress in situations where defendants are placed in a metal cage when they appear before a court in criminal proceedings. Nor does the existing practice provide for a specific procedure to be followed by a person who wishes to be released from a cage (see Natig Jafarov v. Azerbaijan , no. 64581/16, § 33, 7 November 2019).

10. In the present case the Court notes that (i) the alleged ill-treatment complained of by the applicant, namely his placement in a metal cage in a courtroom, took place during the trial, which finished on 16 March 2015, and (ii) the parties are in dispute as to whether, during the proceedings before the Baku Court of Appeal which finished on 29 May 2015, the applicant was held in the same conditions. The Court considers that there is no need to establish the latter factual circumstance because in any event the applicant did not maintain that the alleged ill-treatment had continued during the proceedings before the Supreme Court. Even assuming that the applicant was held in a metal cage during both the first-instance and the appellate court proceedings, in the absence of any effective domestic remedy in that regard the starting date for the running of the six-month period would be 29 May 2015, that is, the date on which the appellate court proceedings ended (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev , cited above, § 87, and Sadigov v. Azerbaijan (dec.) [Committee], no. 24668/15, § 24, 3 December 2020). However, the applicant lodged his application with the Court on 23 November 2016 and it does not therefore comply with the six-month rule (compare Sadigov , cited above, §§ 22-25, and Tortladze v. Georgia , no. 42371/08, § 46, 18 March 2021).

11. Accordingly, the application has been lodged out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 28 September 2023.

Liv Tigerstedt Krzysztof Wojtyczek Deputy Registrar President