FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 60421/11 Alovsat Jalal oglu OSMANLI against Azerbaijan

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 28 September 2023 as a Committee composed of:

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

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 September 2011,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant, Mr Alovsat Jalal oglu Osmanli, was born in 1956. He was represented by Mr E. Sadigov, a lawyer practising in Baku.

The applicant’s complaint under Article 10 of the Convention concerning the defamation proceedings against him was communicated to the Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”).

In their observations of 6 April 2019 on the admissibility and merits of the case, the Government informed the Court that the applicant had died in 2013.

On 24 May 2019 the late applicant’s representative confirmed that the applicant had died on 7 September 2013. He also noted that he had tried to contact the applicant’s wife, but that she had refused to meet with him. The representative nevertheless submitted, on behalf of the deceased applicant, observations in reply to the Government’s observations, noting that he did so pursuant to the authority form given to him by the applicant when he had been alive.

On 28 May 2019 the late applicant’s representative submitted an authority form signed by the applicant’s wife and a copy of her identity card. However, the representative’s accompanying letter did not expressly state that she intended to pursue the application. The representative noted that he “affirmed” the observations which he had submitted on the late applicant’s behalf pursuant to the authority form given to him by the applicant.

In their further submissions, the Government argued that no clear intention to pursue the application had been expressed by the late applicant’s next ‑ of ‑ kin and asked the Court to strike the case out of its list.

THE LAW

The Court must establish whether the late applicant’s wife or his representative, Mr Sadigov, have standing to pursue the application following the applicant’s death.

In this connection, the Court reiterates that, where the applicant has died after the application was lodged, it has accepted that the next-of-kin or heir may in principle pursue the application, provided that he or she has sufficient interest in the case (see, for example, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08 , § 97, ECHR 2014, with further references).

Having examined the material submitted, the Court is unable to conclude that the late applicant’s wife has demonstrated sufficient interest in pursuing the present application. No clearly expressed intention to do so on her part can be discerned from the submissions of the late applicant’s representative, Mr Sadigov, which are ambiguous as to who specifically wished to pursue the application – the applicant’s wife or himself. In any event, she does not appear to have been aware of the fact that the applicant had lodged an application with the Court, and she has not informed the applicant’s representative of his death for almost six years after it. The fact of the applicant’s death was brought to the Court’s attention for the first time by the Government. Nor did the late applicant’s wife claim that she had suffered any consequences from the alleged violation of the applicant’s rights or that, assuming that she intended to pursue the application before the Court, such intention had any moral dimension.

Moreover, in so far as Mr Sadigov’s submissions could be understood that he himself, as the applicant’s representative, wished to pursue the application based on the original authority form signed by the applicant, it is undisputed that Mr Sadigov is not the applicant’s heir and that he seeks to pursue the case concerning the alleged violation of the rights of the applicant to whom he does not claim to be either closely or distantly related.

Against this background, the Court finds that no clearly expressed request to pursue the proceedings has been submitted by a person providing evidence of his or her legitimate interest to pursue the application (see Romanov v. Russia (dec.), no. 35627/14, 6 October 2022), with further references, and Mammadova v. Azerbaijan (dec.), no. 30640/09, 18 February 2021, with further references).

Lastly, the Court considers that respect for human rights does not require it to continue the examination of the present case.

In the light of the foregoing, and in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention, the Court finds that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application and concludes that the application should be struck out of its list of cases.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Done in English and notified in writing on 19 October 2023.

Viktoriya Maradudina Krzysztof Wojtyczek Acting Deputy Registrar President