CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 15 octobre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s494F418E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-size:7pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s354F7CEB { width:27.79pt; display:inline-block } .sA4FA8E5F { width:143.76pt; display:inline-block } .sC70B85C6 { width:24.78pt; display:inline-block } .s549C6E96 { width:113.75pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3D484263 { width:10.5%; 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 } .sF895281B { width:24.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s4493BBF7 { width:14.42%; 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 } .s7FDD75C9 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.2pt; color:#474747 } .sE8168E43 { width:12.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sB5B1C99F { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s26725EEE { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sD35D798C { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sF4F6D646 { width:10.5%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4DF7F984 { width:24.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s1D97E42E { width:14.42%; 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 } .sC8EE2B33 { width:12.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 406/12 Adam JAFAROV and Others against Azerbaijan (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 15   October 2020 as a Committee composed of:   Ganna Yudkivska, President,   Ivana Jelić,   Arnfinn Bårdsen, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 2   January 2012, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants is set out in the appended table. The applicants were represented by Mr R. Cook, a lawyer practising in London. The applicants’ complaints under Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, concerning the domestic authorities’ refusal to allow the applicant community to import some religious books, were communicated to the Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”). THE LAW The Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article   37 of the Convention. The declaration provided as follows: 1.     The Government of the Republic of Azerbaijan hereby wish to express – by way of unilateral declaration – their acknowledgement of the fact that there was a violation of the applicants’ rights guaranteed under the Convention. 2.     The Government are prepared to pay to the applicant community, the sum of EUR   3,000 (three thousand euros) in total, for any pecuniary damage and non ‑ pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses incurred before the Court. This sum shall be free of any tax that may be applicable and shall be payable within three months from the date of the notification of the striking-out judgment of the Court pursuant to Article 37 of the European Convention on Human Rights. From the expiry of the above-mentioned period, simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. 3.     In the light of above, the Government would suggest that the circumstances of the present cases allow the Court to reach the conclusion that there exists ‘any other reason’, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention, justifying to discontinue the examination of the application, and that, moreover, there are no reasons of a general character, as defined in Article 37 § 1 in fine , which would require the further examination of the case by virtue of that provision. Accordingly, the Government invite the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases. By a letter of 10 July 2020, the applicants indicated that they welcomed the recognition of the violation of their Convention rights by the Government, but that they were not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration. In particular, they contended that the issues raised in the present application had not been determined by the Court in previous cases against the respondent State and that the Government’s unilateral declaration did not address the problems underlying the alleged violations of the Convention. They also submitted that the Government accepted to pay compensation only to the applicant community and not to the other individual applicants, who were all victims of the Convention violation. The Court observes that Article   37 §   1   (c) enables it to strike a case out of its list if: “... for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application.” Thus, it may strike out applications under Article   37 §   1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the case to be continued (see, in particular, the Tahsin Acar v.   Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) [GC], no.   26307/95, §§   75 ‑ 77, ECHR 2003-VI). The Court has established clear and extensive case-law in respect of Azerbaijan relating to the domestic authorities’ interference with the importation of religious publications (see, Religious Community of Jehovah’s Witnesses v. Azerbaijan , no. 52884/09, §§ 24-26, 20 February 2020). Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases (see Religious Community of Jehovah’s Witnesses , cited above, § 50) – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article   37 §   1   (c)). As regards the payment of the compensation solely to the applicant community, the Court notes that only the applicant community applied to the domestic authorities for permission to import the religious literature in question and the compensation paid to the applicant community is made for the benefit of its members (see, mutatis mutandis , Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church (Metropolitan Inokentiy) and Others v.   Bulgaria (just satisfaction), nos. 412/03 and 35677/04, §§ 39 and 45, 16   September 2010). In the light of the above considerations, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article   37   §   1 in fine ). Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application may be restored to the list in accordance with Article   37 §   2 of the Convention ( Josipović v.   Serbia (dec.), no.   18369/07, 4   March 2008). In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein; Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article   37 §   1   (c) of the Convention. Done in English and notified in writing on 5 November 2020.   Liv Tigerstedt   Ganna Yudkivska   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Articles 9, 10 and 14 of the Convention Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth / Date of registration Representative’s name and location Date of receipt of Government’s declaration Date of receipt of applicants’ comments, if any Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses to the applicant community [1] 406/12 02/01/2012 (11 applicants) Adam JAFAROV 1983 RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES 22/12/1999 Eligiz Elman oglu ALIYEV 1983 Mehriban Fikrat gizi MAMMADOVA 1976 Khaladdin TAHIROV 1956 Galina YAKIMOVA 1972 Agil GULIYEV 1972 Naila RZAYEVA 1977 Sanan YAGUBOV 1991 Tatyana GASIMOVA 1963 Valentina ADILKHANOVA 1953 Cook Richard London 25/06/2020 10/07/2020 3,000   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant community.