Lexploria

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF AHMADLI AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

(Applications nos. 26163/22 and 7 others â€“

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

8 February 2024

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

In the case of Ahmadli and Others v. Azerbaijan,

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

PÃ©ter Paczolay , President , Gilberto Felici, Raffaele Sabato , judges ,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 18 January 2024,

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 (â€œthe Conventionâ€) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.

2. The Azerbaijani Government (â€œthe Governmentâ€) were given notice of the applications.

THE FACTS

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

4. The applicants complained under Article 11 of the Convention of the disproportionate measures taken against them as participants of public assemblies. They also raised other complaints under Article 6 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. The applicants complained principally of disproportionate measures taken against them as participants of public assemblies, namely the dispersal of these assemblies, as well as their arrest followed by their conviction for administrative offence.

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; Ibrahimov and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 69234/11 and 2 others, 11 February 2016; Hajibeyli and Others v. Azerbaijan [Committee], nos. 5231/13 and 12 others, 30 June 2016; Mehtiyev and Others v. Azerbaijan [Committee], nos. 20589/13 and 7 others, 6 April 2017; and Hasanov and Others v. Azerbaijan [Committee], nos. 39919/07 and 14 others, 5 September 2019, 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 as to the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the interferences with the applicantsâ€™ freedom of assembly were not â€œnecessary in a democratic societyâ€.

9. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 11 of the Convention.

10. The applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under Article 6 Â§Â§ 1 and 3 of the Convention, given the relevant well â€‘ established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 Â§ 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose a violation of Article 6 Â§Â§ 1 and 3 of the Convention in the light of its findings in Gafgaz Mammadov , cited above , Â§Â§ 83-96; Huseynli and Others , cited above , Â§Â§ 119-24; and Pichugin v. Russia , no. 38623/03 , Â§Â§ 187-92, 23 October 2012.

11. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case â€‘ law (see, in particular, Gasimli v. Azerbaijan [Committee], nos. 57739/18, 28 September 2023, and Haziyev v. Azerbaijan [Committee], nos. 38931/20, 9 November 2023), the Court finds it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicantsâ€™ 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.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 8 February 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 Â§Â§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Viktoriya Maradudina PÃ©ter Paczolay Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Articles 11 and 6 of the Convention

(unlawful or disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies and unfair trial in administrative-offence proceedings)

No.

Application no.

Date of introduction

Applicantâ€™s name

Year of birth

Representativeâ€™s name and location

Name of the public event

Location

Date

Administrative offence

Penalty

Final domestic decision

Name of the court

Date

Other complaints under well-established case-law

Amount awarded for pecuniary and non â€‘ pecuniary damage

per applicant

(in euros) [1]

Amount awarded for costs and expenses

per application

(in euros) [2]

26163/22

16/04/2022

Fuad

Zafar oglu AHMADLI

1990

Zibeyda

SADIGOVA

Baku

Demonstration protesting the conviction of an opposition member

Baku

05/10/2021

and

08/10/2021

Articles 510 and 535 of the CAO

Administrative fine of

70 Azerbaijani manats

and

One monthâ€™s administrative detention

Baku Court of Appeal

15/11/2021

and

20/10/2021

Art. 6 (1) â€“ insufficient or

manifestly unreasonable

justification of court decisions (see Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan , no. 60259/11, Â§Â§ 83-87, 15 October 2015, and Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan , nos. 67360/11 and 2 others, Â§Â§ 119-24, 11 February 2016).

3,400

300

32307/22

08/06/2022

Elchin

Tahir oglu TEYMUROV

1989

Elchin

SADIGOV

Baku

Demonstration protesting against the conviction of an opposition member

Baku

01/12/2021

Article 211 of the CAO

Twenty-five daysâ€™ administrative detention

Baku Court of Appeal

08/12/2021

Art. 6 (1) â€“ insufficient or

manifestly unreasonable

justification of court decisions (see Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan , no. 60259/11, Â§Â§ 83-87, 15 October 2015, and Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan , nos. 67360/11 and 2 others, Â§Â§ 119-24, 11 February 2016).

2,600

250

32331/22

08/06/2022

Ilham

Telman oglu HUSEYNOV

1983

Zibeyda

SADIGOVA

Baku

Demonstration protesting against the conviction of an opposition member

Baku

01/12/2021

Article 211 of the CAO

Thirty daysâ€™ administrative detention

Baku Court of Appeal

10/12/2021

Art. 6 (1) â€“ insufficient or

manifestly unreasonable

justification of court decisions (see Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan , no. 60259/11, Â§Â§ 83-87, 15 October 2015, and Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan , nos. 67360/11 and 2 others, Â§Â§ 119-24, 11 February 2016),

Art. 6 (1) â€“ trial in camera â€“ the hearing before the trial court was closed to public ( Pichugin v. Russia , no. 38623/03, Â§Â§ 187-92, 23 October 2012).

2,600

250

32337/22

09/06/2022

Sayyad

Arzuman oglu GULIYEV

1996

Elchin

SADIGOV

Baku

Demonstration protesting against the conviction of an opposition member

Baku

01/12/2021

Article 211 of the CAO

Fifteen daysâ€™ administrative detention

Baku Court of Appeal

10/12/2021

Art. 6 (1) â€“ insufficient or

manifestly unreasonable

justification of court decisions (see Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan , no. 60259/11, Â§Â§ 83-87, 15 October 2015, and Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan , nos. 67360/11 and 2 others, Â§Â§ 119-24, 11 February 2016).

2,600

250

32466/22

09/06/2022

Elkhan

Rustam oglu ALIYEV

1982

Elchin

SADIGOV

Baku

Demonstration protesting against the conviction of an opposition member

Baku

01/12/2021

Article 211 of the CAO

Twenty daysâ€™ administrative detention

Baku Court of Appeal

09/12/2021

Art. 6 (1) â€“ insufficient or

manifestly unreasonable

justification of court decisions (see Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan , no. 60259/11, Â§Â§ 83-87, 15 October 2015, and Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan , nos. 67360/11 and 2 others, Â§Â§ 119-24, 11 February 2016).

2,600

250

50157/22

01/10/2022

Aga-Ali Eldar oglu YAHYAYEV

1983

Zibeyda

SADIGOVA

Baku

Spontaneous peaceful assembly for attending the court hearing

Baku

20/05/2022

Articles 510 and 535 of the CAO

Thirty daysâ€™ administrative detention

Baku Court of Appeal

01/06/2022

Art. 6 (1) â€“ insufficient or

manifestly unreasonable

justification of court decisions (see Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan , no. 60259/11, Â§Â§ 83-87,

15 October 2015, and Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan , nos. 67360/11 and 2 others, Â§Â§ 119-24, 11 February 2016),

Art. 6 (1) â€“ trial in camera â€“ the hearing before the trial court was closed to public ( Pichugin v. Russia , no. 38623/03, Â§Â§ 187-92, 23 October 2012).

2,600

250

50635/22

10/10/2022

Imran

Jalil oglu MAMMADLI

1996

Zibeyda

SADIGOVA

Baku

Spontaneous peaceful assembly for attending the court hearing

Baku

20/05/2022

Articles 510 and 535 of the CAO

Thirty daysâ€™ administrative detention

Baku Court of Appeal

10/06/2022

Art. 6 (1) â€“ insufficient or

manifestly unreasonable

justification of court decisions (see Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan , no. 60259/11, Â§Â§ 83-87, 15 October 2015, and Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan , nos. 67360/11 and 2 others, Â§Â§ 119-24, 11 February 2016),

Art. 6 (3) (c) â€“ free legal assistance (see Gafgaz Mammadov , cited above, Â§Â§ 88-94, and Huseynli and Others , cited above, Â§Â§ 125-34),

Art. 6 (1) â€“ trial in camera â€“ the hearing before the trial court was closed to public ( Pichugin v. Russia , no. 38623/03, Â§Â§ 187-92, 23 October 2012).

2,600

250

50642/22

07/10/2022

Elgiz

Elshad oglu MAMMADOV

1990

Zibeyda

SADIGOVA

Baku

Spontaneous peaceful assembly for attending the court hearing

Baku

20/05/2022

Articles 510 and 535 of the CAO

Thirty daysâ€™ administrative detention

Baku Court of Appeal

07/06/2022

Art. 6 (1) â€“ insufficient or

manifestly unreasonable

justification of court decisions (see Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan , no. 60259/11, Â§Â§ 83-87, 15 October 2015, and Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan , nos. 67360/11 and 2 others, Â§Â§ 119-24, 11 February 2016),

Art. 6 (3) (c) â€“ free legal assistance (see Gafgaz Mammadov , cited above, Â§Â§ 88-94, and Huseynli and Others , cited above, Â§Â§ 125-34),

Art. 6 (1) â€“ trial in camera â€“ the hearing before the trial court was closed to public ( Pichugin v. Russia , no. 38623/03, Â§Â§ 187-92, 23 October 2012).

2,600

250

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

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

Menu

CASE OF AHMADLI AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

CASE OF AHMADLI AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

LEXI