FIRST SECTION

CASE OF ALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

(Application no. 37714/17)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

19 October 2023

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Aliyev v. Azerbaijan,

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

Krzysztof Wojtyczek , President , Lətif Hüseynov, Ivana Jelić , judges ,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 28 September 2023,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application against Azerbaijan lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 18 May 2017.

2. The applicant was represented by Mr A. Rasulov, a lawyer based in Azerbaijan.

3. The Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applicant’s complaint under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

THE FACTS

4. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.

5. The applicant complained of the lack of justification for his pre-trial detention.

THE LAW

6. Relying on Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 and Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant complained that the domestic courts had failed to justify the necessity for the application of preventive measure of pre-trial detention in his case. The Court considers that this complaint should be examined solely under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

7. In the leading cases of Farhad Aliyev v. Azerbaijan (no. 37138/06, 9 November 2010), Isayeva v. Azerbaijan (no. 36229/11, 25 June 2015) and Zayidov v. Azerbaijan (no. 11948/08, 20 February 2014), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

8. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of this complaint. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the domestic courts failed to justify the need for the applicant’s pre-trial detention.

9. This complaint is therefore admissible and discloses a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

10. Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”

11. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law (see, in particular, Farhad Aliyev, and Zayidov , both cited above, and Novruz Ismayilov v. Azerbaijan, no. 16794/05, 20 February 2014), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 19 October 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Viktoriya Maradudina Krzysztof Wojtyczek

Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention

(lack of justification for pre-trial detention)

Application no.

Date of introduction

Applicant’s name

Year of birth

Period of detention

Length of detention

Specific defects

Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage

(in euros) [1]

Amount awarded for costs and expenses

(in euros) [2]

37714/17

18/05/2017

Samir

ALIYEV

1981

16/07/2015

to

06/02/2017

1 year,

6 months

and 22 days

Fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to examine the possibility, as the case progressed, of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial.

5,100

500[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.

[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.