CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 2 décembre 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s945796C9 { margin-top:54pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s24E6874 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:center } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sE77B86B8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sD423F84E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2E1B62A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center } .s538D183F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s586AA269 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:8.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sCD7D0356 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:4.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sC47DA4E2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCBF2D345 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:8.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD6845F38 { font-family:Arial; color:#0072bc } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s695E2BCF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s16F6432D { width:7.9pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFABD3260 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sFF8BF293 { width:8.05pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4196892D { width:3.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sBD165FDE { width:5.39pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 } .s53CE0290 { width:176.96pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6F64785A { width:87.54%; border-collapse:collapse } .s92C821B8 { width:8.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s66732282 { width:22.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sF43C5150 { width:22.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s3E181D07 { width:8.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s53532DF { width:22.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s77626D63 { width:22.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   FIFTH SECTION CASE OF ELECTION MONITORING CENTRE AND OTHERS v.   AZERBAIJAN (Application no. 64733/09)     JUDGMENT Art 11 • Freedom of association • Repeated refusal to register NGO and grant it legal-entity status in a timely manner neither prescribed by law nor in pursuit of a legitimate aim • Unjustified subsequent dissolution of the NGO Art 34 • Hinder the exercise of the right of application • Seizure of case-file on pending application to the Court from the office of the applicants’ representative   STRASBOURG 2 December 2021 FINAL   02/03/2022     This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Election Monitoring Centre and Others v. Azerbaijan, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Síofra O’Leary, President,   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström,   Lətif Hüseynov,   Jovan Ilievski,   Lado Chanturia,   Ivana Jelić,   Mattias Guyomar, judges, and Victor Soloveytchik, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   64733/09) against the Republic of Azerbaijan lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by Election Monitoring Centre ( Seçkilərin Monitorinqi Mərkəzi ) (“the applicant association”) and two Azerbaijani nationals, Anar Asaf oglu Mammadli ( Anar Asəf oğlu Məmmədli ) (“the second applicant”) and Bashir Suleyman oglu Suleymanli ( Bəşir Süleyman oğlu Süleymanlı ) (“the third applicant”), on 20 November 2009; the decision to give notice to the Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning Articles 11 and 34 and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 2 November 2021, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The applicants complained that the delay in the registration and the subsequent dissolution of the Election Monitoring Centre had violated their right to freedom of association under Article   11 of the Convention and that the seizure of their case file from the office of their lawyer had been in breach of their right of individual application without hindrance under Article 34 of the Convention. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant association, the Election Monitoring Centre (“the EMC”), is a non-governmental organisation based in Baku. The second and third applicants – the co-founders of the EMC – were born in 1978 and 1980 respectively and live in Baku. The applicants were represented by Mr   I.   Aliyev, a lawyer based in Azerbaijan. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Əsgərov. 4.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. Registration of the association 5.     The EMC was established in the form of an association in February 2006. It specialised in the monitoring of elections. 6.     The initial co-founders of the EMC were the second applicant and Ms   S.H. In July 2007, before the fifth request for the registration of the EMC was made (see paragraphs 7, 9 (v) and 10 below), Ms   S.H. withdrew as a co ‑ founder, and the third applicant became a new co-founder along with the second applicant. 7.     From March 2006 to August 2007 the co-founders of the EMC made five requests asking the Ministry of Justice to register the EMC as a legal entity, each time submitting the necessary registration documents. 8.     After each request, the Ministry of Justice extended the time-limit for examining the submitted (or resubmitted) registration documents, then replied with a letter indicating certain deficiencies allegedly contained in those documents and returned them to the co-founders. After receiving each reply, the co-founders made rectifications to the registration documents and resubmitted them together with their next registration request. 9.     The Ministry of Justice indicated the following alleged deficiencies as the reasons for it not registering the association following the relevant requests: (i)     By a letter of 1 June 2006 in response to the first request for registration: The decision establishing the EMC and approving its charter had not been duly signed by the co-founders; moreover, with some exceptions, the charter did not set out the required rules on the adoption of decisions concerning issues falling within the remit of the association’s management board; (ii)     By a letter of 15 September 2006 in response to the second request: The decision establishing the EMC and approving its charter had not been duly signed by the co-founders; and the charter did not set out rules governing the holding of meetings of the EMC’s control and review committee; (iii)     By a letter of 8 December 2006 in response to the third request: The request for the association to be registered should have contained a disclaimer confirming that all the facts presented to the registering authority and all the documents submitted to it were correct; Article 6.7 of the EMC’s charter needed to be amended in order that it would conform with Article 11 of the Law on accounting records ; and the cover page of the charter should have contained the title of the registering department; (iv)     By a letter of 26 June 2007 in response to the fourth request: There was a certain inconsistency between the title of the association and its aim, as indicated in the charter; in a document confirming the payment of the registration fee the title of the association was written differently; the cover page of the charter needed to be amended in conformity with a special form that set out the requirements in this regard; and the second sentence of Article   6.7 of the charter needed to be amended in order to conform with Article 11 of the Law on accounting records; (v)     By a letter of 7 November 2007 in response to the fifth request: The charter did not specify a quorum in respect of meetings of the association’s management board; the creation of the executive bodies of the association and any termination of their powers before the expiration of their respective term of office fell within the authority of the general assembly, and the wording of the charter therefore needed to be amended so that it stipulated those requirements clearly; on the cover page of the charter the title of the registering department needed to be indicated in the manner illustrated by a certain special form; and the content of Article 6.7 of the charter needed to be clarified. 10.     In the above-mentioned letter of 7 November 2007, the Ministry also indicated that there was a divergence between the issues that had been included in the agenda of the co ‑ founders’ meeting of 1 August 2007 and the issues concerning which the co-founders had actually adopted decisions, and that it was therefore advised that the relevant clarifications be made. It appears that, according to the agenda of the mentioned meeting, the co ‑ founders were scheduled to decide on the issue of enlarging the list of the co-founders; however, no decision was taken in that regard. (No copy of the agenda is contained in the case file.) 11.     All the above-mentioned letters of the Ministry of Justice stated that, on the basis of Article 11.3.1 of the Law on State registration and the State register of legal entities (“ the Law on State Registration ”), the documents were “being returned” ( sənədlər geri qaytarılır ) or “being returned unexecuted” ( sənədlər icra olunmadan geri qaytarılır ). 12.     In December 2007 the co-founders made their last request for registration of the EMC. That request was allowed, and the association was registered on 1   February 2008 and was issued a State registration certificate. 13.     While copies of the last request and the one submitted before it (the fifth) are not available in the case file, it appears from the applicants’ submissions and other material in the case file that those requests were signed by the second applicant and the third applicant, the latter replacing Ms S.H. as a co-founder (see paragraph 6 above), and that the requests detailed the second and third applicants’ relevant personal information and were approved by a notary. In those two requests Ms S.H.’s name was not indicated as a co-founder. Dissolution of the association 14.     Around two months after the registration, in April 2008 the Ministry of Justice brought an action in the Khatai District Court against the EMC under Articles 59.2.2 and 59.2.3 of the Civil Code, seeking the annulment of the EMC’s registration and its dissolution. 15.     The Ministry of Justice asserted that before its registration the EMC had failed to inform the Ministry of whether or not Ms S.H. had withdrawn from the list of the co-founders. The Ministry argued that by the above ‑ mentioned letter of 7 November 2007 it had warned the applicants about a lack of clarity in the list of the co-founders (see paragraph   10 above) and that the applicants had failed to rectify that deficiency. The Ministry also stated that after its registration the EMC had failed to inform it of a change of its registered legal address and of the establishment of its eight local representative offices. The Ministry argued that by doing so the applicants had breached Articles 4.2, 5.1, 5.2, 12.8.3, 14.1.6 and 14.1.8 of the Law on State Registration, Articles 3.2 and 3.3 of the Law on non ‑ governmental organisations (public associations and funds) (“the Law on NGOs”) and Article 51 of the Civil Code. 16.     In reply to the action brought by the Ministry of Justice, the EMC lodged an objection with the Khatai District Court arguing, inter alia , that the Ministry’s allegations were false or did not have a lawful basis, or both. It argued that the Ministry had been informed about the change in the list of the co-founders and that, had the co-founders not rectified all the alleged deficiencies indicated in the letter of 7 November 2007, the EMC would not have been registered. Furthermore, the existence of the EMC’s office at a different address had not affected its legal address – the latter had remained the same. Lastly, the EMC had been in the process of establishing its representative offices and would inform the Ministry about them as soon as they were established. The applicant association also argued that the requirements of the domestic laws that had allegedly been breached were not clear and that the procedural provisions concerning the dissolution (Articles   59.2.2 and   59.2.3 of the Civil Code) gave the domestic authorities unlimited discretion to dissolve a legal entity. In that connection, they maintained that, in any event, even if the Ministry of Justice’s arguments concerning the alleged breaches were well-founded and had a clear lawful basis, those alleged breaches were minor and technical in nature and, therefore, could not serve as grounds warranting the dissolution of the EMC under domestic law and the Convention. 17.     The EMC requested the first-instance court to summon and examine as witnesses Ms S.H. and members of the local representative offices. Those requests were not granted. 18.     The EMC also lodged a counteraction against the Ministry of Justice and sought damages. The applicant association argued that the Ministry of Justice had breached the relevant provisions of the Law on State Registration (namely, Articles 8.2, 8.3 and 8.4 of the Law) and that consequently the registration had been unlawfully delayed. 19.     On 14 May 2008 the Khatai District Court granted the Ministry of Justice’s action and ordered the dissolution of the EMC, referring to Articles 59.2.2 and 59.2.3 of the Civil Code, on the following grounds: (a)     In breach of Articles 5.1, 5.2 and 14.1.6 of the Law on State Registration and Article 45 of the Civil Code, before its registration the EMC had failed to inform the Ministry of Justice whether or not Ms S.H. had withdrawn from the list of the co-founders. Furthermore, the second and third applicants had failed to sign and submit a contract (approved by a notary) establishing the association. By the above-mentioned letter of 7   November 2007, the Ministry had warned the applicants regarding the lack of clarity in the list of the co-founders, but the applicants had failed to rectify that deficiency; (b)     In breach of Articles 3.2 and 3.3 of the Law on NGOs and Article 51 of the Civil Code, the EMC had failed to inform the Ministry of a change of its legal address. According to the website of the association, the main office of the EMC was located at an address (namely, an address on Vagif Avenue in Baku) that was different from the recorded legal address (namely, an address in Zig Yolu Street in Baku); and (c)     In breach of Articles 4.2, 12.8.3 and 14.1.8 of the Law on State Registration, the EMC had failed to inform the Ministry of the establishment of its local representative offices. According to the website of the association, eight such representative offices had been created. 20.     The court did not expressly address the arguments raised by the EMC (see paragraph 16 above). It also dismissed the EMC’s counteraction as unfounded, finding that the reasons indicated by the Ministry in its letters (see paragraphs 9 and 10 above) were lawful and the registration documents had been returned to the co-founders owing to deficiencies contained in them, and that there had been no undue delay in the association’s State registration. 21.     The applicant association appealed against the judgment of the first ‑ instance court, reiterating the arguments raised earlier. 22.     It appears that Ms S.H. submitted to the appellate court a written statement explaining that she had withdrawn from the list of co-founders and had done so voluntarily. However, the appellate court did not take that statement into account when examining the case. 23.     On 25 November 2008 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it groundless. The appellate court reiterated the first-instance court’s reasoning. 24.     On 22 May 2009 the Supreme Court upheld the Baku Court of Appeal’s judgment of 25 November 2008, reiterating the reasoning of the lower-instance courts. 25.     Following the dissolution of the EMC, on 1   December 2008 the second applicant and some of his colleagues founded the Election Monitoring and Democracy Studies Centre ( Seçkilərin Monitorinqi və Demokratiyanın Tədrisi Mərkəzi ), and lodged several unsuccessful applications with the Ministry of Justice for the registration of that association as a legal entity. The domestic authorities’ refusal to register the Election Monitoring and Democracy Studies Centre is the subject of another application pending before the Court (see application no.   70981/11). Search and seizure in the office of the applicants’ representative 26.     On 8 August 2014 criminal proceedings were instituted against Mr   Aliyev, who represented the applicants before the Court. Those criminal proceedings were the subject of a separate application lodged by him with the Court (see Aliyev v. Azerbaijan , nos. 68762/14, and 71200/14, 20   September 2018). On 8 and 9   August 2014 the investigating authorities seized a large number of documents from Mr Aliyev’s office, including all the case files relating to the applications pending before the Court, which were in Mr   Aliyev’s possession as a representative. The file relating to the present case was also seized in its entirety. The facts relating to the seizure and the relevant proceedings are described in more detail in Annagi   Hajibeyli v.   Azerbaijan (no. 2204/11, §§   21-28, 22   October 2015). 27.     On 25 October 2014 some of the seized documents were returned to Mr Aliyev’s lawyer. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK 28.     The relevant parts of Article 4 of the Law on State registration and the State register of legal entities of 12 December 2003 (“the Law on State Registration”), as in force at the material time, provided as follows: Article 4. General rules on State registration of legal entities and maintenance of the State register “4.2.     Branches or representative offices or other institutions of legal entities that have been State registered in the Republic of Azerbaijan shall be entered in the State register.” 29.     The relevant parts of Article 5 of the Law on State Registration, as in force at the material time, provided as follows: Article 5. Request for the State registration of an organisation wishing to obtain legal‑entity status “5.1.     An organisation wishing to obtain legal-entity status must submit a request ( ərizə ) to the relevant executive authority [the Ministry of Justice]. 5.2.     The request shall be signed by the founder (or, if there are several, by all the founders) or by a person authorised in the relevant manner to represent [him, her or them] and shall be approved by a notary. ... 5.4.     The following documents shall be attached to the request: 5.4.1.     Founding documents – the charter of the organisation wishing to obtain legal‑entity status, approved by its founder (or founders) or his or her (or their) authorised representative, and the decision founding the organisation and adopting its charter (the decision ... must be signed by all the founders).” 30.     The relevant parts of Article 8 of the Law on State Registration, as in force at the material time, provided as follows: Article 8. Procedure for State registration of a non-commercial organisation wishing to obtain legal-entity status “8.1.     State registration of a non-commercial organisation wishing to obtain legal‑entity status, as well as a branch or representation of a foreign non-commercial legal entity, shall, as a general rule, be carried out within forty days. 8.2.     The relevant executive authority [the Ministry of Justice] accepts for examination the application for State registration and the required accompanying documents and, within thirty days, verifies their compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan, this Law and other legislative acts of the Republic of Azerbaijan. If during the examination there arises a need for an additional review in exceptional cases, this period can be extended for another thirty days. 8.3.     If the submitted documents are found to contain deficiencies that cannot serve as a basis for the refusal of State registration, the relevant executive authority [the Ministry of Justice] shall return the documents to the applicant and fix an additional twenty‑day period for rectification of those deficiencies. Any deficiencies [in the registration documents] that cannot serve as a basis for the refusal [of State registration] shall be identified and notified to the applicant for rectification at once. 8.4.     No later than ten days after the submitted documents have been examined or after the deficiencies identified in those documents have been rectified, the relevant executive authority [the Ministry of Justice] shall issue to the applicant a certificate on State registration or give a written notice of refusal of State registration (specifying and explaining the legal provisions which serve as a basis for the refusal).” 31.     The relevant parts of Article 11 of the Law on State Registration, as in force at the material time, provided as follows: Article 11. Ensuring legality in the application of the law “11.3.     State registration of an organisation ... wishing to obtain legal-entity status ... may be refused only in the following cases: 11.3.1.     if the documents submitted to the relevant executive authority [the Ministry of Justice] are in contradiction to the Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan, this Law or other legislation; ... 11.3.4.     if the deficiencies identified by the relevant executive authority [the Ministry of Justice] in the founding documents have not been rectified within the time period specified in Article 8.3 of this Law.” 32.     The relevant parts of Article 12 of the Law on State Registration, as in force at the material time, provided as follows: Article 12. Main principles concerning the State register of legal entities “12.8.     The State register consists of the following: ... 12.8.3.     information about branches or representative offices, as well as other institutions of a legal entity registered on the territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan.” 33.     The relevant parts of Article 14 of the Law on State Registration, as in force at the material time, provided as follows: Article 14. Information to be included in the State register “14.1.     The following information about organisations listed in the State register must be included in the register’s written records: ... 14.1.6.     the name, surname, patronymic, nationality and place of residence of each founder of an organisation; if a founder is a legal person, its title, legal address and information about its registration; ... 14.1.8.     location, organisational-legal form and information about the registration of institutions ( qurumlar ) created by a legal entity on the territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan or outside the territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan.” 34.     The relevant parts of Article 3 of the Law on non-governmental organisations (public associations and funds) of 13 June 2000 (“the Law on NGOs”), as in force at the material time, provided as follows: Article 3. Title of a non-governmental organisation and its location “3.2.     The location of a non-governmental organisation shall be identified by its legal address, as indicated in its charter. 3.3.     If the legal address of a non-governmental organisation changes, written information about that change shall be provided to [the Ministry of Justice] within a period not shorter than seven days ( qeyri-hökumət təşkilatının hüquqi ünvanı dəyişdikdə müvafiq icra hakimiyyəti orqanına bu barədə 7 gün müddətindən az olmamaq şərti ilə yazılı məlumat verilməlidir ).” 35.     Article 45 of the 2000 Civil Code, as in force at the material time, provided as follows: Article 45. Creation of a legal entity “45.1.     A legal entity is created by its establishment and by the preparation of its charter. 45.2.     If a legal entity is created by several co-founders, they establish its charter and define rules governing their cooperation concerning the establishment of that legal entity ..., by signing a contract [between themselves].” 36.     Article 51 of the 2000 Civil Code, as in force at the material time, provided as follows: Article 51. Location of a legal person “A place where a permanent body of a legal person is located shall be considered a location of that legal person.” 37.     The relevant parts of Article 59 of the 2000 Civil Code, as in force at the material time, provided as follows: Article 59. Dissolution of a legal entity “59.2.     A legal entity may be dissolved: ... 59.2.2.     If a court considers the registration of the legal entity to be invalid owing to breaches of the law committed during its establishment. 59.2.3.     By a court order, if the legal entity engages in activities without the required permit (licence) or in activities that are prohibited by law, or if it otherwise commits repeated or grave breaches of the law, or if a public association or foundation systematically engages in activities that are contrary to the aims set out in its charter, as well as in other cases provided by the [Civil] Code . 59.3.     A request to dissolve the legal entity on the grounds specified in Article   59.2 of this Code may be lodged by [the Ministry of Justice] or by that local self ‑ administration authority to which the right to lodge such a request is granted by law.” 38.     A detailed description of other relevant provisions of the Law on NGOs and of the Law on State Registration, as well as of the relevant international documents, may be found in   Jafarov and Others v.   Azerbaijan (no. 27309/14, §§ 36-37, 41 and 43-44, 25 July 2019). THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 11 OF THE CONVENTION 39.     The applicants complained under Article 11 of the Convention that the repeated failures by the Ministry of Justice to register the EMC and to grant the association legal-entity status in a timely manner had amounted to a violation of their right to freedom of association. 40.     The applicants also complained that the dissolution of the EMC, after it had finally been registered, had violated their right to freedom of association. 41.     The relevant parts of Article   11 of the Convention read as follows: “1.     Everyone has the right ... to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. 2.     No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.” Admissibility 42.     The Court notes that the present complaints are neither manifestly ill-founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article   35 of the Convention. It must therefore be declared admissible. Merits Complaint concerning the repeated refusals and the delayed registration of the applicant association (a)    The parties’ submissions 43.     The applicants submitted that the Ministry of Justice had breached the relevant domestic provisions concerning the State registration of an association as a legal entity and that consequently, the registration of the EMC had been unlawfully and arbitrarily delayed. Also, the Ministry of Justice should have identified all the alleged deficiencies at the same time and given the applicants the opportunity to rectify them all at once, in accordance with Article 8.3 of the Law on State Registration. 44.     The applicants furthermore argued that there had been no valid “exceptional” reason, as required by Article 8.2 of the Law on State Registration, to extend the time-limit for the examination of the registration documents, and that the Ministry of Justice had failed to reply to some of their requests for registration within the ten-day time-limit provided by Article   8.4 of the Law on State Registration. 45.     The applicants also argued that without registration and legal entity status, the association had been unable to function properly and to engage in its primary activities. 46.     The Government submitted that the actions of the Ministry of Justice had been in line with domestic law and that the reasons given by the Ministry for its decisions had been well-founded. The applicants had been seeking to secure the registration of their association on the basis of documents which did not meet the relevant requirements. Consequently, the Ministry of Justice had returned the registration documents so that the applicants could rectify the deficiencies contained in them. 47.     The Government also argued that the domestic law had not prevented non-governmental organisations from functioning without registration. Therefore, the association could have engaged in its activities and even entered into various contracts (it could, for example, have rented premises and opened a bank account) in the absence of registration and without obtaining legal-entity status. (b)    The Court’s assessment (i)       Whether there was interference 48.     For the reasons set out in Jafarov and Others v.   Azerbaijan (no.   27309/14, §§ 59-60, 25 July 2019), the Court rejects the Government’s argument that domestic law had not prevented non-governmental organisations from functioning properly without registration. 49.     The Court notes that the repeated failures by the Ministry of Justice to register the EMC resulted in a significant delay in respect of the registration procedures, which took almost two years. The EMC was unable to acquire legal-entity status during that entire period and, consequently, could not, inter alia , open a bank account, hire employees, or receive in its name any grants or financial donations which constituted one of the main sources of financing of non-governmental organisations. Therefore, the delay, in itself, amounted to an interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of association (compare, mutatis mutandis , Ramazanova and   Others v. Azerbaijan , no. 44363/02, § 60, 1 February 2007, and Jafarov and Others , cited above, § 61). (ii)     Whether the interference was lawful 50.     The Court observes at the outset that it has already found a violation of Article 11 in a number of cases against Azerbaijan concerning allegations that the authorities delayed or even practically impeded the registration and therefore the functioning of non-governmental organisations by repeatedly returning or refusing registration requests for alleged failure to fulfil administrative formalities many of which did not have clear basis in domestic law (see Jafarov and Others , cited above; Mehman Aliyev and   Others v. Azerbaijan [Committee], nos. 46930/10 and 11 others, 20   May 2021; and Abdullayev and Others v. Azerbaijan [Committee], nos.   69466/14 and 12 others, 20 May 2021). The present case discloses no significant difference. 51.     Referring to its analysis in the above-mentioned cases, the Court notes that the Law on State Registration contained several provisions applicable to the procedure for registering NGOs as legal entities – in particular, Articles 8.3 – applicable to situations in which there were “deficiencies” in registration documents not warranting a “definitive” formal refusal to register an association, that is to say “rectifiable deficiencies” – and 11.3.1 – applicable to situations that warranted a “definitive” formal refusal to register an association (see paragraphs 30 and   31 above; for a more detailed analysis of these and other relevant provisions of the Law on State Registration by the Court, see Jafarov and   Others , cited above, §§   87 ‑ 90; Mehman Aliyev and Others , cited above, § 39, and Abdullayev and Others , cited above, § 28). 52.     In the present case, similarly to Jafarov and Others , Mehman Aliyev and Others and Abdullayev and Others , the wording of all of the Ministry of Justice’s letters was ambiguous as to which of the above ‑ mentioned provisions of the Law on State Registration had been applied. Thus, on the one hand, in all its letters the Ministry of Justice noted that the documents of the EMC contained deficiencies and were accordingly being “returned” (or “returned unexecuted”). That wording suggested that the Ministry intended to return the documents in order that the alleged deficiencies could be rectified, in accordance with Article 8.3 of the Law on State Registration, without adopting a definitive decision with regard to the requests for registration. However, the letters did not expressly specify a twenty-day rectification period. On the other hand, the Ministry of Justice cited Article   11.3.1 of the same Law as a basis for returning the registration documents. Such reference to Article 11.3.1 of the Law on State Registration suggested that each of the Ministry’s replies constituted a “definitive” refusal to register the association. However, the letters of the Ministry of Justice did not state that registration had been formally “refused”, but merely that the documents were being “returned” – the term used in Article   8.3 of the Law (compare Jafarov and Others , cited above, §   91; Mehman Aliyev and Others , cited above, § 40; and Abdullayev and   Others , cited above, § 29). 53.     Moreover, the alleged deficiencies identified by the Ministry of Justice after the applicants’   subsequent requests would already have been present in the registration documents submitted with their first or earlier requests. Nevertheless, the Ministry did not notify the applicants of all those alleged deficiencies after the initial review; instead, after each successive registration request had been lodged by the applicants, it addressed a new alleged deficiency found in the same registration documents (compare Jafarov and Others , cited above, § 92; Mehman Aliyev and Others , cited above, § 41; and Abdullayev and Others , cited above, § 30). 54.     The domestic courts, when seized with the EMC’s counteraction regarding the registration procedure (see paragraph 18 above), failed to assess the procedural correctness and consistency of the Ministry of Justice’s responses, or to clarify the interplay between the rules provided under Articles 8.3 and 11.3.1 of the Law on State Registration. The courts reiterated the submissions made by the Ministry of Justice to the effect that the documents had been “returned” owing to deficiencies contained in them and held that the reasons indicated by the Ministry in its letters were lawful (see paragraphs 20 and 23-24 above). None of the domestic courts examined and explained the lawfulness of the references by the Ministry of Justice to Article   11.3.1 of the Law on State Registration (compare Jafarov and   Others , cited above, §   93; Mehman Aliyev and Others , cited above, §   42; and Abdullayev and Others , cited above, § 31). 55.     If the Ministry of Justice indeed intended to return the registration documents for rectification – as was argued by the Government in its observations before the Court (see paragraph 46 above) – the provisions of Article 8.3 of the Law on State Registration should have been applied correctly. In particular, the Ministry should have identified all the alleged deficiencies in one review and explicitly given the applicants a twenty-day rectification period (compare Jafarov and Others , cited above, § 94; Mehman Aliyev and Others , cited above, § 43; and Abdullayev and Others , cited above, § 32). 56.     Having regard to the above, the Court finds that the Ministry of Justice did not comply with the requirements of domestic law concerning the registration procedure, which resulted in an unlawful delay in the registration of the EMC. Accordingly, the interference in the present case cannot be considered to have been “prescribed by law” within the meaning of Article   11 § 2 of the Convention. The case therefore follows the same pattern as observed in series of similar cases against Azerbaijan (see paragraph 50 above). 57.     In view of the above finding, the Court considers that there is no need to examine the other arguments raised by the applicants in connection with the lawfulness of the interference (see paragraph 44 above). 58.     Lastly, having regard to the manner in which the authorities treated the requests to register the applicant association in the present case, as analysed above, the Court considers it necessary to add that the Government have not convincingly shown that the repeated de facto refusals to register the association had aimed at ensuring compliance with the law and therefore at “prevention of disorder”. Neither has it been shown that those refusals pursued any of the other aims that could justify an interference under Article   11 of the Convention. Therefore, the interference with the applicants’ right under that provision resulting from the protracted registration process did not pursue a legitimate aim. 59.     There has accordingly been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention in respect of the delay in the registration of the EMC. Complaint concerning the dissolution of the applicant association (a)    The parties’ submissions 60.     The applicants submitted that the findings of the domestic courts had not been factually well-founded or had not had an adequate legal basis, or both. The applicants argued, in particular, that the legal provisions cited by the courts either had not contained the specific requirements that had allegedly been breached or had not complied with the “quality of law” requirement of the Convention. They furthermore maintained that the Ministry of Justice had been informed of the change made to the list of the co-founders. The existence of the EMC’s office at a different address had not affected its legal address, which had remained the same. Furthermore, at the material time the EMC had been in the process of establishing its representative offices and would have notified the Ministry of them as soon as they were established. 61.     The applicants also submitted that the wording of Articles 59.2.2 and   59.2.3 of the Civil Code, cited by the domestic authorities, was vague and gave the Ministry of Justice and the domestic courts unlimited discretion in deciding whether a legal entity should be dissolved. The applicants argued that the alleged breaches, even if the allegations thereof had indeed been well ‑ founded and based on clear legal provisions, had nevertheless been minor and technical in nature and could therefore not have served as justifiable grounds for the dissolution. 62.     The applicants lastly argued that in any event, the dissolution of the EMC had not been necessary in a democratic society. 63.     The Government submitted that the dissolution of the EMC had been in line with domestic law and that the reasons given for that measure had been well-founded, as the applicants had breached several provisions of the relevant domestic laws either before or after the registration of the association. Namely, they failed to inform the Ministry of Justice about the change to the list of the co-founders, a change of the EMC’s legal address and the establishment of eight local representative offices. 64.     The Government also argued that the decisions of the domestic authorities had been necessary in a democratic society. (b)    The Court’s assessment (i)       General principles 65.     The right to form an association is an inherent part of the right set forth in Article 11 of the Convention. The ability to establish a legal entity in order to act collectively within a field of mutual interest is one of the most important aspects of the freedom of association, without which that right would be deprived of any meaning. The way in which national legislation enshrines this freedom and its practical application by the authorities reveals the state of democracy in the country concerned. Certainly States have a right to satisfy themselves that an association’s aim and activities are in conformity with the rules laid down in legislation, but they must do so in a manner compatible with their obligations under the Convention and subject to review by the Convention institutions (see, among many others, Sidiropoulos and Others v.   Greece , 10   July 1998; § 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 ‑ IV, and Jafarov and Others , cited above, § 54). 66.     Although, within the context of Article 11, the Court has often referred to the essential role played by political parties in ensuring pluralism and democracy, associations formed for other purposes are also important for the proper functioning of democracy. For pluralism is also built on genuine recognition of, and respect for, diversity and the dynamics of cultural traditions, ethnic and cultural identities, religious beliefs, and artistic, literary and socio-economic ideas and concepts. Harmonious interaction between persons and groups with varied identities is essential for achieving social cohesion. It is only natural that, where a civil society functions in a healthy manner, the participation of citizens in the democratic process is to a large extent achieved through belonging to associations in which they may integrate with each other and pursue common objectives collectively (see, among many others, Gorzelik and Others v. Poland [GC], no.   44158/98, §   92, ECHR 2004 ‑ I). (ii)     Whether there was interference 67.     The Court considers that the dissolution of the EMC had amounted to an interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of association. 68.     The interference will not be justified under the terms of Article   11 of the Convention unless it is “prescribed by law”, pursues one or more of the legitimate aims set out in paragraph 2 of that Article and is “necessary in a democratic society” for the achievement of that aim or aims. (iii)    Whether the interference was lawful (α)      Principles applicable to the lawfulness of the interference 69.     The Court reiterates that the expressions “prescribed by law” and “in accordance with the law” in Articles 8 to 11 of the Convention not only require that an impugned measure should have some basis in domestic law, but also refer to the quality of the