CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 3 mai 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s5CD26361 { font-family:Arial; color:#008000 } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s15BDF7F4 { font-family:Arial; color:#1f497d } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sCAF42A0A { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:21.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-21.3pt } .s76CC6FD2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s7AF9E746 { width:20.69pt; display:inline-block } .s55FDF252 { width:190.28pt; display:inline-block } .s5B081A9D { width:168.28pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s8AC71050 { width:3.4%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s5F0BC093 { width:8.46%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sA38C12E2 { width:9.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s528B1376 { width:9.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7FDD75C9 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.2pt; color:#474747 } .sC1A84BFA { width:10.42%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sBA897867 { width:8.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s3310F964 { width:13.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sAD3403A4 { width:10.4%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s12FD586 { width:9.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .s33FCFA36 { width:7.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s14CF46D1 { width:3.4%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sBD7689E2 { width:8.46%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6423D807 { width:9.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD608B2D9 { width:9.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sDC78F956 { width:10.42%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2BE1500A { width:8.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sAA572E2C { width:13.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s79D7B7CD { width:10.4%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sA3334D3A { width:9.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s55630C2E { width:7.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 }       FIFTH SECTION             CASE OF RAMIKHANOV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN (Application no. 31732/08 and 19 others - see appended list )                               JUDGMENT         STRASBOURG   3 May 2018       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Ramikhanov and Others v. Azerbaijan, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 12   April 2018 as a Committee composed of:   André Potocki, President,   Síofra O’Leary,   Mārtiņš Mits, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 12 April 2018, 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 applications were communicated to the Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”). 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 of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions. THE LAW I.     JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. II.     LOCUS STANDI IN APPLICATION No. 44281/09 6.     The applicant in application no. 44281/09 died on 4 July 2011. On 5   January 2016 Ms Yegana Sadikhova, the applicant’s daughter, expressed her intention to pursue the application. The Government opposed the request. 7.     The Court reiterates that where an applicant dies during the examination of a case, his or her heirs may in principle pursue the application on his or her behalf (see Ječius v. Lithuania , no. 34578/97, § 41, ECHR 2000-IX; Shiryayeva v. Russia , no. 21417/04, §§ 8-9, 13 July 2006; and Horváthová v. Slovakia , no. 74456/01, § 26, 17 May 2005). Nothing suggests that the rights the applicant sought to protect through the Convention mechanism in the present application were eminently personal and non-transferable (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic [GC], no.   33071/96, § 1, 12 July 2001). Accordingly, the Court holds that Ms   Yegana Sadikhova has standing to continue the present proceedings in her late father’s stead. III.     THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST TO STRIKE OUT SOME APPLICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 37 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 8.     The Government submitted unilateral declarations in applications nos.   29248/11, 69191/11, 650/12 and 36164/13 which did not offer a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (Article   37 § 1 in fine ). The Court rejects the Government’s request to strike the applications out and will accordingly pursue its examination of the cases (see Tahsin Acar v.   Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no.   26307/95, §   75, ECHR 2003-VI). IV.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 9.     The applicants complained of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given in their favour. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which reads as follows: Article 6 § 1 “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by a ... tribunal ...” 10.     The Court reiterates that the execution of a judgment given by any court must be regarded as an integral part of a “hearing” for the purposes of Article 6. It also refers to its case-law concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of final domestic judgments (see Hornsby v. Greece , no. 18357/91, § 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 ‑ II). 11.     In the leading cases of Akhundov v. Azerbaijan (no. 39941/07, §§   15 ‑ 36, 3 February 2011) and Jafarli and Others v. Azerbaijan (no.   36079/06, §§ 29-54, 29 July 2010), as well as in the case of Mirzayev v.   Azerbaijan (no. 50187/06, §§ 23-37, 3 December 2009), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 12.     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 case the authorities did not deploy all necessary efforts to enforce fully and in due time the decisions in the applicants’ favour. 13.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. V.     OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 14.     Some of the applicants complaining of non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given in their favour also relied on Article 13 of the Convention (applications nos.   31732/08, 501/09 and   13261/11) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (all save the applicants in the applications nos.   31732/08, 501/09, 40144/10 and   56330/10), which read as follows: Article 13 of the Convention “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.” Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 “Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.” 15.     As concerns the complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, according to well-established case-law, a “claim” can constitute a “possession” if it is sufficiently established to be enforceable (see, Jafarli and Others , cited above, § 56). The Court notes that the decisions in the relevant applications ordered specific action to be taken and became enforceable upon their delivery. The Court therefore considers that those decisions constitute “possessions” within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. 16.     Having examined all the material submitted to it and given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see, among others, Akhundov v. Azerbaijan, cited above, §§   38 ‑ 40, and Jafarli and Others , cited above, §§ 56-58), 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. 17.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. 18.     Turning to the complaints under Article 13 of the Convention, the Court finds that these complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35   §   3   (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. 19.     However, the Court does not consider it necessary to rule on the merits of these complaints because Article 6 is lex specialis in regard to this part of the applications (see, for example, Tarverdiyev v. Azerbaijan , no.   33343/03, § 62, 26 July 2007). VI.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 20.     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.” 21.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, among many others, Zulfali Huseynov v. Azerbaijan , no.   56547/10, §§ 21-37, 26 June 2012), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. It rejects any additional claims for just satisfaction made by the applicants. 22.     The Court further notes that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to enforce the judgments which remain enforceable. 23.     The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, 1.     Decides to join the applications;   2.     Holds that in the application no. 44281/09 the applicant’s daughter, Ms   Yegana Sadikhova, has standing to continue the proceedings in Mr   Sadikhov’s stead;   3.     Rejects the Government’s request to strike the applications nos.   29248/11, 69191/11, 650/12 and 36164/13 out of its list of cases under Article 37 §   1 of the Convention on the basis of the unilateral declarations which they submitted;   4.     Declares the applications admissible;   5.     Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention;   6.     Holds that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention as regards the complaints raised under this provision under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);   7 .     Holds that there is no need to examine the complaints under Article 13 of the Convention;   8.     Holds that the respondent State is to ensure, by appropriate means, within three months, the enforcement of the pending domestic decisions referred to in the appended table;   9.     Holds (a)     that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, with the exception of the amounts for costs and expenses which are to be paid into the applicants’ representatives’ bank accounts, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into New Azerbaijani manats 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;   10.     Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 3 May 2018, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   Liv Tigerstedt   André Potocki Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant name Date of birth / Date of registration Representative name and location Relevant domestic decision Start date of non-enforcement period   End date of non-enforcement period Length of enforcement proceedings Other complaints under well-established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary damage per applicant / household (in euros) [1] Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant / household (in euros) [2] Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application (in euros) [3]     31732/08 20/06/2008 Mais Ramikhanov 03/05/1970     Court of Appeal, 06/03/2007   06/03/2007   pending More than 11 year(s) and 18 day(s)       3,600       501/09 05/12/2008 Rafig Abdullayev 15/07/1949     Court of Appeal, 08/12/2006   08/12/2006   pending More than 11 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 16 day(s)       3,600       44281/09 28/07/2009 Sadikh Sadikhov 23/08/1918 Alizade Akif Baku   Narimanov District Court, 28/11/2006   25/01/2007   pending More than 11 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 27 day(s)   Prot. 1 Art. 1 - interference with peaceful enjoyment of possessions   3,600 200     34921/10 01/04/2010 Ramiz Suleymanov 26/02/1954 Mustafayev Mukhtar Baku Supreme Court, 18/06/2008   18/06/2008   pending More than 9 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 6   day(s)   Prot. 1 Art. 1 - interference with peaceful enjoyment of possessions   3,600       40144/10 02/07/2010 Natig Baybalayev 14/01/1967     Baku Court of Appeal, 19/07/2006 19/07/2006   pending More than 11 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 5   day(s)     3,600       52462/10 02/02/2012 Guloglan Badirov   Abdullayeva Sevinj Baku Supreme Court, 15/09/2004   15/09/2004   12/10/2013 9 year(s) and 28   day(s) Prot. 1 Art. 1 - interference with peaceful enjoyment of possessions   3,600 200     56330/10 14/09/2010 Abdulhamid Manafov 03/12/1976     Supreme Court, 29/06/2010   29/06/2010   pending More than 7 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 24 day(s)       3,600       13261/11 09/02/2011   Halal Shirketi 24/05/1999 Valiyeva Nargiz Baku Baku Economic Court No.2, 02/04/2010   02/04/2010   30/08/2012 2 year(s) and 4   month(s) and 29   day(s) Prot. 1 Art. 1 - interference with peaceful enjoyment of possessions   1,200       17374/11 28/02/2011 Firuza Jafarova 28/07/1960 Shukurov Elkhan Baku Supreme Court, 24/06/2009   24/06/2009   pending More than 8 year(s) and 9 month(s) Prot. 1 Art. 1 - interference with peaceful enjoyment of possessions   3,600 200   29248/11 26/04/2011 Mahammad Abbasov 03/04/1962 Guliyev Sahil Baku Nasimi District People’s Court, 07/12/1994   15/04/2002   pending More than 15 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 9 day(s) Prot. 1 Art. 1 - interference with peaceful enjoyment of possessions   3,600 200   69191/11 30/10/2011 Shaban Rzayev 01/01/1938     Supreme Court, 18/05/2011   18/05/2011   19/11/2012 1 year(s) and 6   month(s) and 2   day(s)   Prot. 1 Art. 1 - interference with peaceful enjoyment of possessions   900     650/12 21/12/2011 Almas Guliyeva 02/08/1958 Aliyev Farhad Sumgayit Sabail District Court, 08/01/2007   08/02/2007   pending More than 11 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 16 day(s)   Prot. 1 Art. 1 - interference with peaceful enjoyment of possessions   3,600 200   19934/12 24/02/2012 Azer Gasimov 01/07/1964 Aliyev Intigam Sumgayit Khazar District Court, 15/12/2009       Supreme Court, 31/03/2011   15/12/2009           31/03/2011   pending More than 8 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 9   day(s)   03/09/2013 2 year(s) and 5   month(s) and 4   day(s)   Prot. 1 Art. 1 - interference with peaceful enjoyment of possessions   4,700 200   20280/12 12/03/2012 Arzukhanim Alizade 05/10/1950 Hajibeyli Tural Baku Court of Appeal, 22/10/2004   22/10/2004   pending More than 13 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 2   day(s)   Prot. 1 Art. 1 - interference with peaceful enjoyment of possessions   3,600 200   40417/12 13/06/2012 Galib Aliyev 20/06/1955     Supreme Court, 15/12/2011   15/12/2011   17/06/2015 3 year(s) and 6   month(s) and 3   day(s)   Prot. 1 Art. 1 - interference with peaceful enjoyment of possessions   2,100     44341/12 28/06/2012 Atraba Binnatova 06/08/1965 Shahbazov Yavar Baku Supreme Court, 19/05/2010   19/05/2010   pending More than 7 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 5 day(s) Prot. 1 Art. 1 - interference with peaceful enjoyment of possessions   3,600 200   36164/13 21/05/2013 Bahram Rustamov 12/08/1943 Hasanov Jabbar Baku Sumgayit Court of Appeal, 28/11/2011   28/01/2012   18/12/2014 2 year(s) and 10   month(s) and 21   day(s)   Prot. 1 Art. 1 - interference with peaceful enjoyment of possessions   1,500 200   71816/13 14/11/2013 Mahira Mammadova 03/08/1968 Shahverdi Agaveys Baku Supreme Court, 13/09/2011   13/09/2011   pending More than 6 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 11 day(s) Prot. 1 Art. 1 - interference with peaceful enjoyment of possessions   3,600 200   63715/14 09/09/2014 Kamil Asgarov 02/01/1963 Mustafazade Ruslan Sumgayit Court of Appeal, 14/02/2014   14/02/2014   pending More than 4 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 10 day(s)   Prot. 1 Art. 1 - interference with peaceful enjoyment of possessions 1,872 1,800 200   15483/16 14/03/2016 Nabi Hasanov 10/10/1933 Mustafazade Ruslan Sumgayit Ganja Administrative-Economic Court, 18/04/2013   18/05/2013   pending More than 4 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 6 day(s) Prot. 1 Art. 1 - interference with peaceful enjoyment of possessions   1,800 200     [1] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable. [2] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. [3] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants or their representatives.