FIRST SECTION

CASE OF MAMMADOV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

(Application no. 23689/14 and 7 others – see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

21 September 2023

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

In the case of Mammadov and Others 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 31 August 2023,

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

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in applications against Azerbaijan lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.

2. The Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.

THE FACTS

3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

4. The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention of the unfair trial in administrative offence proceedings. Some of the applicants also complained under other provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW

5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

6. Relying on Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention, the applicants complained that they had not committed any administrative offence and that they had not had a fair hearing, since the domestic courts’ decisions had lacked adequate reasoning. The Court considers that these complaints fall to be examined solely under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Hasanov v. Azerbaijan, [Committee], no. 59202/12, § 16, 28 April 2022, and Ahmadli v. Azerbaijan , [Committee], 52286/11, § 7, 30 June 2022).

7. In the leading cases of Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 60259/11, 15 October 2015, Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 67360/11 and 2 others, 11 February 2016, Hasanov and Majidli v. Azerbaijan, nos. 9626/14 and 9717/14, 7 October 2021, Savalanli v. Azerbaijan, [Committee], no. 30608/14, 14 January 2021, and Ibrahimov v. Azerbaijan, [Committee], no. 39466/16, 14 January 2021, 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 these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant cases the administrative offence proceedings against the applicants, considered as a whole, were not in conformity with the guarantees of a fair hearing under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

9. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

10. Relying on Articles 6, 7, 10 and 18 of the Convention, some applicants also made additional complaints related to the same facts and legal issues which had been examined by the Court (see paragraphs 7-9 above).

11. Having regard to the facts of the cases, the submissions of the parties and its findings under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal questions raised in the present applications and there is no need to give a separate ruling on the remaining complaints (see, among other authorities, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014, and references cited therein; Mehman Aliyev and Others v. Azerbaijan [Committee], no. 46930/10 and 11 others, §§ 52-54, 20 May 2021; Azer Ahmadov v. Azerbaijan , no. 3409/10, §§ 77-79, 22 July 2021; and Imranova and others v. Azerbaijan , [Committee], nos. 59462/14 and 17 others, § 21, 16 February 2023).

12. 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.”

13. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Yegorov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 77208/16 and 4 others, 28 May 2019; Kuratov and Others v. Russia, [Committee], nos. 24377/15 and 2 others, 22 October 2019; Shaliyev v. Azerbaijan , [Committee], no. 80814/17, 9 March 2023; and Safarov and others v. Azerbaijan , [Committee], nos. 1476/18 and 19 others, 23 March 2023), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, 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;

(c) Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 21 September 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Viktoriya Maradudina Krzysztof Wojtyczek Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 of the Convention

(unfair trial in administrative offence proceedings)

No.

Application no.

Date of introduction

Applicant’s name

Year of birth

Representative’s name and location

Administrative charges

Penalty

Date of final domestic decision

Name of court

Specific defects in respect of the main complaints

Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant

(in euros) [1]

Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application

(in euros) [2]

23689/14

11/03/2014

Zaur

Nazim oglu MAMMADOV

1994Asabali

MUSTAFAYEV

Sumgayit

Ruslan

MUSTAFAZADE

Sumgayit

Article 310 of the CAO (at the material time)

Fifteen-days’ administrative detention

Baku Court of Appeal

24/10/2013

art. 6 (1) – insufficient or manifestly unreasonable justification of court decisions (see Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan , no. 60259/11, §§ 83-87, 15 October 2015, and Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan , nos. 67360/11 and 2 others, §§ 119-24, 11 February 2016).

1,000

250(to be paid directly to the representative Mr Ruslan Mustafazade’s bank account)

24061/15

30/04/2015

Khalid

Bahman oglu GARAYEV

1981Samira

AGAYEVA

Baku

Article 310 of the CAO (at the material time)

Twenty-five-days’ administrative detention

Baku Court of Appeal

06/11/2014

art. 6 (1) – insufficient or manifestly unreasonable justification of court decisions (see Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan , no. 60259/11, §§ 83-87, 15 October 2015, and Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 67360/11 and 2 others , §§ 119-24, 11 February 2016).

1,000

250(to be paid directly to the representative Ms Samira Agayeva’s bank account)

47633/15

31/08/2015

Razim

Rza oglu RZAYEV

1964Khalid

BAGIROV

Baku

Articles 296 and 310 of the CAO (at the material time)

Six-days’ administrative detention

Shaki Court of Appeal

05/08/2015

art. 6 (1) – insufficient or manifestly unreasonable justification of court decisions (see Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan , no. 60259/11, §§ 83-87, 15 October 2015, and Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan , nos. 67360/11 and 2 others, §§ 119-24, 11 February 2016).

1,000

250(to be paid directly to the representative Mr Khalid Bagirov’s bank account)

60146/16

06/10/2016

Ismayil

Yahya oglu RASULOV

1957Asabali

MUSTAFAYEV

Sumgayit

Ruslan

MUSTAFAZADE

Sumgayit

Article 535 of the CAO

Six-days’ administrative detention

Baku Court of Appeal

30/08/2016

art. 6 (1) – insufficient or manifestly unreasonable justification of court decisions (see Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan , no. 60259/11, §§ 83-87, 15 October 2015, and Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan , nos. 67360/11 and 2 others, §§ 119-24, 11 February 2016).

1,000

250(to be paid directly to the representative Mr Ruslan Mustafazade’s bank account)

60955/16

08/10/2016

Ruslan

Abdulkhan oglu GARAYEV

1989Asabali

MUSTAFAYEV

Sumgayit

Ruslan

MUSTAFAZADE

Sumgayit

Articles 510 and 535 of the CAO

Twenty-days’ administrative detention

Sumgayit Court of Appeal

06/08/2016

art. 6 (1) – insufficient or manifestly unreasonable justification of court decisions (see Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan , no. 60259/11, §§ 83-87, 15 October 2015, and Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan , nos. 67360/11 and 2 others, §§ 119-24, 11 February 2016).

1,000

250(to be paid directly to the representative Mr Ruslan Mustafazade’s bank account)

66391/16

31/10/2016

Amid

Yusif oglu SULEYMANOV

1987Nemat

KARIMLI

Baku

Article 535 of the CAO

Ten-days’ administrative detention

Baku Court of Appeal

07/06/2016

art. 6 (1) – insufficient or manifestly unreasonable justification of court decisions (see Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan , no. 60259/11, §§ 83-87, 15 October 2015, and Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan , nos. 67360/11 and 2 others, §§ 119-24, 11 February 2016).

1,000

250(to be paid directly to the representative Mr Nemat Karimli’s bank account)

77240/16

03/12/2016

Samir

Rustam oglu HASANOV

1984Yalchin

IMANOV

Sumgayit

Articles 510 and 535 of the CAO

Fifteen-days’ administrative detention

Shaki Court of Appeal

04/06/2016

art. 6 (1) – insufficient or manifestly unreasonable justification of court decisions (see Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan , no. 60259/11, §§ 83-87, 15 October 2015, and Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan , nos. 67360/11 and 2 others, §§ 119-24, 11 February 2016).

1,000

250

64427/17

21/08/2017

Gadir

Fizuli oglu AGAKISHIYEV

1988Fariz

NAMAZLI

Baku

Article 535 of the CAO

Thirty-days’ administrative detention

Sumgayit Court of Appeal

24/02/2017

art. 6 (1) – insufficient or manifestly unreasonable justification of court decisions (see Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan , no. 60259/11, §§ 83-87, 15 October 2015, and Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan , nos. 67360/11 and 2 others, §§ 119-24, 11 February 2016).

1,000

250[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

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