CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 6 décembre 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .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 } .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 } .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 } .sC7F250FD { font-style:normal } .s5DCE77A9 { 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 } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .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 } .sB25A0399 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.84pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s6C5BED22 { margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .s4EC10A73 { width:26.87pt; display:inline-block } .sB995083 { width:143.09pt; display:inline-block } .s1255A1CE { width:26.88pt; display:inline-block } .s86378D90 { width:157.43pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s8EE2D88E { height:66.25pt } .s3695F815 { 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 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sEDC5336B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 21274/08 Gunel Rafig gizi YUSIFLI against Azerbaijan and 6 other applications (see list appended)   The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 6   December 2022 as a Chamber composed of:   Marko Bošnjak , President ,   Krzysztof Wojtyczek,   Alena Poláčková,   Lətif Hüseynov,   Ivana Jelić,   Gilberto Felici,   Erik Wennerström , judges , and Renata Degener, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the dates indicated in the appended table; Having regard to the observations submitted by the Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”) and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr   Ç.   Əsgərov. 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. Background information 3.     The applicants in the present applications were civil defendants in the framework of criminal proceedings against the former Minister of Healthcare, Mr Ali Insanov (hereinafter “A. Insanov”), and ten other criminal defendants. In respect of the application lodged by A. Insanov himself in connection with those criminal proceedings, the outcome of which had been that he was convicted of various serious criminal offences including embezzlement, bribery, and forgery by an official, as well as other matters related to those proceedings, the Court has delivered a judgment in Insanov v. Azerbaijan (no.   16133/08, 14 March 2013). Transfers of State-owned property into the applicants’ formal ownership Yusifli v.   Azerbaijan, application no.   21274/08 4.     According to the domestic court material, the applicant, Ms Gunel Yusifli, is a daughter of R.Y., who was a close acquaintance of A. Insanov and a former official in the Ministry of Healthcare. 5.     On 27 November 2000 a lease agreement was concluded with the Ministry of State Property in the name of the applicant concerning State ‑ owned non-residential premises of 117.2 sq. m in Baku (H.   Cavid Avenue 56/57B). The property was on the books of the Ministry of Healthcare. By virtue of a purchase contract of 13   February 2001 concluded with the Ministry of State Property, this property was privatised in the applicant’s name, the purchase price being 27,003,000 old Azerbaijani manats (AZM), equivalent to 5,400.60 new Azerbaijani manats (AZN). According to the findings in the subsequent criminal proceedings (see paragraphs 25-39 below), the actual value of the property was AZN   42,906.24. 6.     On 15   February 2001 an ownership certificate relating to the property was issued by the Ministry of State Property in the name of the applicant. The   property was then leased for profit to the Republican Centre for Hair Treatment, of which the applicant said that she herself was an employee. According to the witness statement made by the applicant’s mother in the domestic court proceedings in 2007 (see below), the property in question had been “privatised” by her late husband, R.Y. “in his daughter’s name”. Insanov and V.I.R.O. v. Azerbaijan, application no.   21904/08 7 .     The individual applicant, Mr Vidadi Insanov (hereinafter “V.   Insanov”), is the son of A. Insanov and the sole owner of the applicant company, V.I.R.O. 8.     On 17   September 2004 a plot of 4,203.9 sq. m located   in Baku (Mir   Gasimov Street 1) was purchased in the name of the applicant company from Logman MMM, a private company, for a price of AZM 60,000,000 (AZN   12,000). The property had previously been privatised in the name of Logman MMM from the stock of the Ministry of Healthcare in 2002, for a price of AZM   56,398,040 (AZN 11,279.60) whereas, according to the findings in the subsequent criminal proceedings (see paragraphs 25-39 below), the actual value of the land was AZN   1,655,300. Before the sale of the land to the applicant company, Logman MMM had demolished premises with a surface area of 522.8   sq. m which were located on the plot and which it had also privatised along with the land, for a separate price of AZM   92,413,000 (AZN 18,482.60) whereas, according to the findings in the subsequent criminal proceedings (see paragraphs 25-39 below), the actual value of those premises was AZN 454,836. 9.     On 14 October 2004 the Ministry of Economic Development delivered a certificate of ownership of the land to the applicant company. According to the applicant company, it then built commercial premises with a total area of more than 5,000 sq. m on the plot. 10 .     According to the material in the domestic criminal case file, Logman MMM was formally owned and managed by I.M., a brother-in-law of V.A., one of the criminal co-defendants of A.   Insanov (see paragraph 28 below), and the husband of the applicant in application no. 33248/08 (see paragraph   15 below). Aliyeva v. Azerbaijan, application no.   26193/08 11.     The applicant, Ms Ayla Aliyeva, is the daughter of A. Insanov. 12.     On 26   April 2001 non-residential premises of 43.9 sq. m located in Baku (Sharifli Street 25/14) were purchased in the name of Arena LLC, a company fully owned by the applicant, from Vita Medical Centre, a private company, for an unspecified price (no copy of the sale contract is available in the case file). On 30 April 2001 a certificate of ownership of the premises was delivered to the applicant’s company. Those premises had previously been privatised in the name of Vita Medical Centre from the stock of the Ministry of Healthcare in 2000, for a price of AZM 3,556,000 (AZN 711.20) whereas, according to the findings in the subsequent criminal proceedings (see paragraphs 25-39 below), the actual value of the property was AZN   30,554.40. 13.     Moreover, on 21   November 2002 non-residential premises of 319.1   sq. m in Baku (Alizade Street 6/8 (T. Aliyarbeyov Street 3)) were purchased in the name of the applicant for an unspecified price from a private person, S.B. The latter had previously bought the property from I.M.S., a private company, also for an unspecified price. In August 2002 I.M.S. had purchased the premises from the stock of the Ministry of Healthcare, for a price of AZM 68,926,000 (AZN 13.785.20) whereas, according to the findings in the subsequent criminal proceedings (see paragraphs 25-39 below), the actual value of the property was AZN 694,042.50. According to the material in the domestic court file, following the transfer of the title into the applicant’s name the non ‑ residential premises were converted into residential premises. 14.     As established by the prosecuting authorities and domestic courts, both Vita Medical Centre and I.M.S. were formally owned by E.M., who was A.   Insanov’s daughter-in-law and the wife of V.   Insanov, the applicant in application no. 21904/08 (see paragraph 7 above), and the managing director of both companies was F.A., one of A. Insanov’s co-defendants. Masimova v. Azerbaijan, application no.   33248/08 15 .     The applicant, Ms Khalida Masimova, is the sister of V.A., one of the criminal co-defendants of A.   Insanov (see paragraph 28 below) and the wife of I.M., who formally owned Logman MMM (see paragraph 10 above). 16.     On 22   January 2005 a purchase contract was concluded in the name of the applicant with Vita Medical Centre in respect of non-residential premises of 519.4   sq. m standing on a plot of 2,099.4   sq. m. in Baku (Musabeyov Street 1) for an unspecified price. These properties had previously been privatised in the name of Vita Medical Centre from the stock of the Ministry of Healthcare in 2000, for prices of AZM 29,111,000 (AZN   5,822.20) for the premises and AZM 30,713,600 (AZN 6,142.72) for the land whereas, according to the findings in the subsequent criminal proceedings (see paragraphs 25-39 below), the actual values of those properties were AZN 632,629.20 and AZN 913,500 respectively. 17.     On 7   March 2005 the Ministry of Economic Development delivered a certificate of ownership of the land and premises to the applicant. According to her, the premises were demolished in 2006 and new buildings were built on the plot and used for a car-servicing business which operated for three years before the criminal proceedings in question. However, in the appeal lodged by the applicant in the framework of the domestic proceedings, she stated among other things that the privatised premises and land had been sold to her only “formally”, and that the actual buyers had been her brother and his business partner, who had subsequently built up the car-servicing business (see paragraph 43 below). Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, application no.   36604/08 18.     The applicant, Mr Farhad Mammadov, is the brother of E.M., who is the daughter-in-law of A.   Insanov and the wife of V. Insanov, the individual applicant in application no. 21904/08 (see paragraph 7 above). 19.     On 13   August 2003 a lease agreement was concluded in the name of the applicant with the State Committee on Management of State Property (“the SCMSP”) of the Ministry of Economic Development, concerning State ‑ owned non-residential premises of 221.8 sq. m in Baku (Rashid Behbudov Street 14 (Nizami Street 99)). The property was part of a clinic on the books of the Ministry of Healthcare. On 1   September 2003 the property was privatised in the name of the applicant for a price of AZM   47,909,000 (AZN   9,581.80) whereas according to the findings in the subsequent criminal proceedings (see paragraphs 25-39 below), the actual value of the property was AZN 482,415. On 3   September 2003 the Ministry of Economic Development delivered a certificate of ownership of the property to him. Huseynova v. Azerbaijan, application no.   41334/08 20.     According to the material in the domestic court file, the applicant, Ms   Yegana Huseynova, was a close acquaintance of A.   Insanov. 21.     On 24   December 2002 a lease agreement was concluded in the name of the applicant with the SCMSP concerning State-owned non-residential premises of 37.4 sq. m in Baku (Qara Qarayev Street 84). The property was part of a clinic on the books of the Ministry of Healthcare. On 31   January 2003 the property was privatised in the applicant’s name for a price of AZM   8,079,000 (AZN   1,615.80) whereas, according to the findings in the subsequent criminal proceedings (see paragraphs 25 ‑ 39 below), the actual value of the property was AZN 7,324.40. On the same date the Ministry of Economic Development delivered a certificate of ownership of the property to her. Musayev and Inad-M v. Azerbaijan, application no.   43125/08 22.     According to the findings of the domestic authorities and courts, the individual applicant, Mr Maharlam Musayev, was a close acquaintance of A.   Insanov. He was the sole owner of the applicant company, Inad-M. 23.     On 1   November 1999 a lease agreement was concluded in the name of the applicant company with the SCMSP concerning State-owned non ‑ residential premises of 69.2 sq. m., located in Baku (Bulbul Avenue 43). The property was part of a clinic on the books of the Ministry of Healthcare. On 26 December 2001 the property was privatised in the name of the applicant company for a price of AZM   16,940,000 (AZN   3,388) whereas, according to the findings in the subsequent criminal proceedings (see paragraphs 25-39 below), the actual value of the property was AZN   52,924.16. On 4   January 2002 the Ministry of Economic Development delivered a certificate of ownership to the applicant company. 24.     The premises were then leased to VIVA LLC, which, according to the documents in the case file and the applicant’s own submissions to the domestic courts, was a company formally co-founded by Vita Medical Centre and M.A, who was the wife of V.A., one of the defendants in the criminal proceedings and the brother of the applicant in application no.   33248/08. The director of VIVA LLC was I.M., the husband of the applicant in application no. 33248/08, who himself was a formal owner of Logman MMM. Criminal case against Ali Insanov, former Minister of Healthcare, and other criminal co-defendants, and civil claim lodged by the prosecuting authorities against the applicants in the framework of the criminal case First-instance proceedings 25 .     On 20 October 2005 A.   Insanov was dismissed from his ministerial office, arrested and subsequently charged with a number of criminal offences. 26.     Specifically, A. Insanov was accused of having committed, among other offences, the following criminal acts, by himself or together with various accomplices. (i)     Between 1997 and 2004 he had created conditions for the unlawful disposal (by way of privatisation) of numerous State-owned real-property assets (land and non-residential premises) which were on the books of the Ministry of Healthcare and had a total estimated value of AZN 27,221,574. Among other things, he was accused of falsifying, with the assistance of accomplices, various documents related to the above-mentioned assets so that the properties could be designated as suitable for privatisation under the State Privatisation Programme and privatisation laws, whereas in fact those assets did not qualify as such and were necessary for the proper functioning of State healthcare institutions. The assets were privatised, for prices significantly lower than their actual value, by sale to his acquaintances or to dummy companies affiliated to him or his acquaintances, or to third persons in exchange for bribes. In connection with some of the above transactions, A.   Insanov received bribes in the total amount of 200,000   United States   dollars (USD) (equivalent to AZN 195,460). Subsequently, a number of the privatised assets were either misappropriated by A.   Insanov himself by way of being sold on nominally to family members or to acquaintances of his who were then named as the new owners, or were sold on to third parties for significant profit. (ii)     He had embezzled AZN 115,240 of public funds in order to pay for the publication of one of his books. (iii)     He had taken a number of bribes in the total amount of USD 76,900 (equivalent to AZN 75,423) and another bribe in the amount of AZN 2,800 in exchange for issuing licences to private companies to operate pharmacies, and had kept 70% of those sums for himself while distributing the remainder among his accomplices. (iv)     He had continually failed to comply with seven final domestic judgments, the earliest of which had been delivered in 1994, ordering the reinstatement of former Ministry of Healthcare employees who had been unlawfully dismissed from their positions. (v)     He had committed a number of other acts of embezzlement and abuse of official authority. 27.     In the course of the pre-trial investigation, the investigating authorities carried out a search of A.   Insanov’s home and found, among other things, large amounts of cash in various currencies, large quantities of precious metals and jewellery, and the title documents to a number of residential properties. 28 .     In addition to A.   Insanov, there were ten other co-defendants, who were either former officials of the Ministry of Healthcare or people who had been involved in commercial transactions with the Ministry. Each of the ten was charged with complicity in some of the criminal offences with which A.   Insanov was charged. In particular, the list of co-defendants included V.A., a former head of department in the Ministry of Healthcare, and his nephew F.A. 29 .     On 22 January 2007, in the framework of the criminal case against A.   Insanov, the Prosecutor General’s Office also lodged a civil claim against a total of forty-eight civil defendants, including the applicants and some of the criminal defendants. No criminal charges were brought against the applicants or certain other civil defendants. The latter were the current owners of the formerly State-owned property which had allegedly been unlawfully privatised. The claim provided a detailed list of several dozen properties which had been on the books of the Ministry of Healthcare and had allegedly been unlawfully privatised, for prices significantly lower than market prices. The claim also provided, where relevant, a list of subsequent transactions and all the persons and companies involved in those transactions. In respect of a number of the properties, there was a pattern of involvement, in various roles, by the same persons (relatives or close acquaintances of A. Insanov) or companies affiliated to them. It was also claimed by the prosecuting authorities that various companies implicated in the above-mentioned transactions, including Arena, Vita Medical Centre, Logman MMM, V.I.R.O. and other companies nominally fully owned and/or managed by A.   Insanov’s relatives or by some of his co-defendants, in fact belonged to A.   Insanov himself. 30 .     Relying on the above-mentioned factual grounds, on Article 337 of the Civil Code and Article 181.7.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Prosecutor General’s Office asked the Court of Serious Crimes to declare the privatisation of those properties and all subsequent transactions concerning them null and void, to return the properties to the books of the Ministry of Healthcare and to restore State ownership over them. 31.     The criminal trial was conducted by the Court of Serious Crimes from February to April 2007. V. Insanov, the individual applicant in application no. 21904/08 and the son of A. Insanov, submitted in the context of the present proceedings that he had not been duly notified of the trial hearings and had not attended them. The applicant in application no. 21274/08 was represented by her mother at the hearings. It appears that the submissions made by her and the other applicants to the trial court essentially consisted in arguing that the relevant privatisation or purchase transactions had been lawful and that they had bought the respective properties in good faith. 32.     The court heard the criminal defendants, some of whom partially admitted the factual basis for various accusations against them. It also heard a large number of witnesses, who testified in connection with various matters relating to the charges brought against the criminal defendants. 33.     In addition to hearing witnesses and defendants, the court also examined documentary and other material evidence presented by the prosecution, including expert reports on the forensic handwriting analyses of a large number of documents, valuation reports on unlawfully privatised properties, and so on. Among this documentary evidence there were three audit reports dated 2006 concerning the “audit of the financial and economic activities of the Ministries of Healthcare and Economic Development”. These had been prepared by a number of employees (sometimes referred to as “experts” in the relevant court documents) of the Ministry of Finance, the Chamber of Auditors and other State agencies pursuant to a decision of the Nasimi District Court of 29 November 2005. In sum, these reports concluded that, despite the fact that the State privatisation programme allowed privatisation of State healthcare facilities only by a decision of the President of the Republic, A.   Insanov had exceeded and abused his official powers and, together with other persons, had unlawfully issued instructions and otherwise created conditions for the unlawful privatisation of a large number of State ‑ owned healthcare facilities, plots of land and other assets. Furthermore, the reports also found that there had been a number of breaches of accounting requirements, instances of mismanagement of State budgetary resources allocated to the Ministry of Healthcare, undocumented or improperly documented use of large amounts of money, and so on. Having examined these reports, the Court of Serious Crimes found that they confirmed that A.   Insanov had committed acts of abuse of official authority and embezzlement of public funds. 34.     On 20 April 2007 the Court of Serious Crimes found A.   Insanov guilty of having committed offences under Articles 179.3.2, 306.2, 308.1, 308.2, 311.3.1, 311.3.2, 311.3.3 and 313 of the Criminal Code. In the same judgment, the court also convicted V.A. and F.A., finding that both of them had been involved in the transactions concerning a number of the unlawfully privatised properties. The remaining criminal defendants were also convicted. 35 .     The court found, among other things, that A. Insanov, having abused his official position as the Minister of Healthcare, had illegally created the conditions for abuse of legal procedures relating to privatisation; had intentionally left a number of State-owned properties on the books of the Ministry but without maintenance arrangements in order to subsequently declare them in too poor a condition to be of use to the Ministry; had falsified official documents relating to those assets; had granted his official consent for their privatisation; and had taken other measures in order to enable their privatisation or subsequent transfer to the names of his relatives or close acquaintances. The court found that, in the framework of those transactions, the value of the properties had been significantly underestimated and, therefore, considerable damage had been inflicted on the public healthcare system and the State budget. Some of the properties had been subsequently sold to third parties at market prices for a significant profit, while a number of them had been transferred, in a pre-arranged manner, into the de   facto ownership of A.   Insanov or other criminal defendants by way of the nominal transfer of the title to those properties to relatives and close acquaintances.   In particular, the court found that the transactions relating specifically to the properties nominally owned by the applicants were in fact fully orchestrated by A.   Insanov himself and had to be classified as embezzlement by him of State property. 36.     The court sentenced A. Insanov to eleven years’ imprisonment with confiscation of property and three years’ prohibition on holding public office. Other criminal defendants were also sentenced to various terms of imprisonment, some conditionally, and with or without confiscation of property or prohibition on holding official positions. 37.     The court also partially allowed the civil claims lodged by the Prosecutor General’s Office against the majority of the civil defendants, including those against the applicants, under Articles 337.4 and 337.5 of the Civil Code. Having summarised in detail in its judgment the prosecuting authorities’ relevant submissions, the statements of the criminal defendants, the relevant witness statements, the relevant expert reports and other documentary material, and with reference to its findings in respect of A.   Insanov and other criminal defendants (see paragraph 35 above), the court concluded that the privatisation of the relevant properties and, where applicable, the chains of subsequent transactions relating to them had been unlawful and invalid. On the basis of its findings, the court ordered that those properties be returned to the books of the Ministry of Healthcare and that State ownership of them be restored. The amounts paid to the State during the privatisations were deducted from the total amount of damages that the former Minister and other convicted persons were ordered to pay. 38.     On the other hand, the court found that some of the unlawfully privatised properties were now owned by bona fide purchasers ( vicdanlı alıcı ) who had no connection to the criminal defendants and therefore it dismissed the civil claims in so far as they related to those assets. 39 .     As regards the pecuniary damage remaining to be compensated for after the partial upholding of the civil claims, the court found that A. Insanov remained liable for damages in the amount of AZN 527,087 personally, and in the total amount of AZN 7,937,822 jointly and severally with three other criminal defendants. Applying the sanction of confiscation under Article 179.3.2 of the Criminal Code, the court ordered that certain private property of A. Insanov be confiscated. That property included: (a)     various precious metals and items of jewellery valued at AZN   1,040,486 which had been found in his home; (b)     USD 1,309,295 in cash found in his home; (c)     884,475 euros in cash found in his home; (d)     AZN 8,984 in cash found in his home; (e)     eleven houses and flats, some of them with auxiliary premises such as garages, collectively valued at AZN   3,655,179.90; and (f)     a car valued at AZN 54,000. Appeals lodged by the applicants and the higher courts’ decisions 40.     Several criminal defendants lodged appeals against the judgment of the Court of Serious Crimes dated 20 April 2007. A number of civil defendants, including the applicants, also appealed. Although some of the applicants (in particular, the applicants in applications nos.   21274/08 and   41334/08) did not provide copies of their domestic appeals to the Court, it appears from the material in the case file that all the applicants essentially argued that they had been bona fide buyers of their respective properties, mainly on the grounds that all the latest transactions concerning those properties had been concluded in their names in accordance with the formal legal requirements and approved by notaries, and that they had not known about the unlawful nature of the decisions on the privatisation of those properties. They requested that the judgment be quashed in so far as it concerned the civil claim against them and that the relevant properties be returned into their ownership. It appears that none of the applicants made any express requests or claims to be compensated specifically either for the sums paid to the State during the privatisation of the properties or for the sums paid pursuant to the sale and purchase agreement with the previous formal owners. 41 .     V.   Insanov, the individual applicant in application no. 21904/08, also complained that, among the assets confiscated from A. Insanov, there were items of jewellery that belonged personally to him and his family, without describing the specific items concerned, their quantity or their value. He also complained that, among the confiscated houses and flats (see paragraph 39 above), there were three that belonged personally to him: a house in a village in the Khizi District, another house in Khizi (M. Mushvig Street 16) and a flat of   175 sq. m with private parking facilities in Baku (Inshaatchilar Avenue   533). He argued that the jewellery and the title documents to the above-mentioned properties had been kept in his father’s home as a matter of “family tradition”, and had been wrongly deemed by the prosecuting authorities and the courts to be assets belonging to his father. It appears that he did not enclose with his appeal any copies of the title documents to the three properties concerned. V.   Insanov also complained that he had not been duly notified of the trial court hearings and therefore had not been able to attend them. 42 .     Similarly, A.   Aliyeva, the applicant in application no. 26193/08, complained that, among the assets confiscated from A. Insanov, there were items of jewellery that belonged personally to her and her family, without describing the specific items concerned, their quantity or their value. She also complained that, among the confiscated houses and flats (see paragraph 39 above), there were two that belonged personally to her: a flat of 223   sq. m in Baku (Azadliq Avenue 990) and a summer house in Novkhani. She argued that the jewellery and the title documents to the properties had been kept in her father’s home as a matter of “family tradition” and had been wrongly deemed by the prosecuting authorities and the courts to belong to her father. It appears that she did not enclose with her appeal any copies of title documents to the two mentioned properties. 43 .     K. Masimova, the applicant in application no. 33248/08, also stated in her appeal, among other things, that “it [was] important to note that, while the non-residential premises and the land referred to were formally sold to me, in reality the buyers of those properties were my brother [V.A., one of the criminal defendants] and his business partner [S.A.]”. She further noted that her brother and his business partner had subsequently borrowed and invested large amounts of money to build up a car-servicing business on the land in question. She nevertheless argued that she was a lawful and bona fide owner of the properties in question and asked the appellate court to quash the judgment in so far as it related to those properties. 44.     By a judgment of 21 September 2007, the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants’ appeals, finding them unsubstantiated, and upheld the first-instance court’s judgment in so far as it upheld the civil claim against them. 45.     The applicants lodged cassation appeals, reiterating their previous complaints and arguments. 46.     On 16   January 2008 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicants’ cassation appeals and upheld the lower courts’ judgments in so far as they upheld the civil claim against them. It found that their submissions and arguments were unsubstantiated. As to the assets confiscated from A. Insanov (see paragraphs 39 and 41-42 above), it upheld the lower courts’ decisions and specified that those assets had been obtained with the proceeds of crime, within the meaning of Article 51.1 of the Criminal Code. It also specified that, although the lower courts had found that the privatisation and subsequent transactions in respect of the relevant properties were invalid and that the properties therefore had to be returned to State ownership, the lower courts had omitted to invalidate the relevant ownership certificates in the operative parts of their judgments. It considered that this technical shortcoming could be remedied in the cassation proceedings and, in the operative part of its decision, declared the relevant ownership certificates invalid. The Supreme Court’s decision was sent to the parties on 20 February 2008. Other proceedings 47 .     V.I.R.O., the applicant company in application no. 21904/08, lodged a separate claim against the Nasimi District Department of Enforcement Officers and the Ministry of Healthcare. The applicant company argued that, because the non ‑ residential premises which had belonged to the Ministry of Healthcare before privatisation no longer existed (they had been demolished by Logman MMM; see paragraph 8 above), the enforcement authorities’ return of the newly built premises to the Ministry of Healthcare was unlawful. The applicant company sought compensation in an amount of AZN   8,144,300, which included the actual market value of the land (AZN   1,655,300, and not AZN 12,000, the sum it had allegedly paid for it when purchasing it from Logman MMM) and the alleged cost of building the new premises (without, however, submitting any relevant documentary evidence of that cost). On 25   January 2008 the Nasimi District Court dismissed the applicant company’s claim as unsubstantiated. The court found that the actions of the enforcement officers were based on the judgment of the Court of Serious Crimes of 20 April 2007 and could not therefore be considered unlawful. It also dismissed the compensation claim, noting that, according to the findings of the Court of Serious Crimes, the properties in question had in reality been embezzled personally by A. Insanov and that V.I.R.O. had not been an actual owner of those properties. On 6   May 2008 the Baku Court of Appeal and on 3   October 2008 the Supreme Court dismissed appeals by the applicant company. Subsequent developments 48 .     In its judgment of 14 March 2013 in application no. 16133/08, in respect of the criminal proceedings against A. Insanov, the Court found that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 taken together with Article 6 § 3   (c) and (d) of the Convention on account of the breach of A. Insanov’s right to have some of the witnesses questioned during the trial hearings and the lack of sufficient opportunities for him and his lawyers to consult in a confidential setting throughout the trial (see Insanov , cited above, §§ 149-71). The   judgment became final on 14 June 2013. 49 .     Following the Court’s judgment, the criminal proceedings were reopened in the part relating to the charges against A. Insanov. In particular, the Plenum of the Supreme Court quashed the Supreme Court’s decision of 16 January 2008 and the judgment of the Baku Court of Appeal of 21   September 2007 in so far as it related to A. Insanov and remitted the case in that respect to the Baku Court of Appeal for rehearing. According to the submissions of the Government in their communication to the Secretariat of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in connection with the execution of the Insanov judgment, in the course of the reopened proceedings the shortcomings identified by the Court were addressed and, in particular, the relevant witnesses were summoned and both A. Insanov and his representative were able to question those witnesses. On 25 February 2014 the Baku Court of Appeal delivered its judgment, again upholding the first ‑ instance court’s judgment of 20 April 2007 in so far as it related to A.   Insanov. In its decision on a cassation appeal lodged by A. Insanov, on 9   June 2016 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Baku Court of Appeal, finding that the shortcomings identified by the Court had been addressed during the reopened appellate proceedings. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK 50.     Article 337 of the Civil Code, as in force at the material time, provided as follows: “337.1     A transaction concluded in violation of the requirements stipulated in this Code shall be invalid. Invalid transactions may be the subject of dispute or may be void. ... 337.4     An invalid transaction shall not result in legal consequences except for consequences relating to its invalidity. Such a transaction shall be invalid from the moment of its conclusion. 337.5     Each party shall, in the event of a transaction being invalid, and where other consequences of its invalidity have not been stipulated in this Code, be obliged to return to the other party all items received pursuant to the transaction, and in the event of the impossibility of returning the same items received (including where the items received have been expressed in the form of use of property, work performed or services rendered), be obliged to compensate for its value in money.” 51.     Article 181.7.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as in force at the material time, provided as follows: “181.7.     Within the framework of criminal proceedings, a prosecutor shall lodge and defend a claim against the accused person or a person who could be held liable for the actions of the accused person in the following cases: 181.7.1.     based on an application by a State entity, company or organisation for the defence of State interests; ...” 52.     Article 51 of the Criminal Code, as in force at the material time, provided as follows: “51.1.     Confiscation of property is a forcible alienation in favour of the State, without compensation, of instruments of crime used by a convicted person to commit a criminal offence, of objects acquired by criminal means, and of proceeds of crime acquired by the convicted person. 51.2.     Confiscation of property shall be ordered only in circumstances provided for in the Special Part of this Code. 51.3.     In the event that the proceeds of crime or objects acquired by criminal means have been used or disposed of or are unavailable for alienation in favour of the State for other reasons, money or other property belonging to the convicted person in the value corresponding to the value [of the proceeds or objects acquired] shall be confiscated.” COMPLAINTS 53.     The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention of a violation of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions on account of the annulment of their titles to their immovable properties. 54.     In addition, the individual applicants in applications nos.   21904/08 and 26193/08, V. Insanov and A. Aliyeva, complained under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention about the allegedly unlawful confiscation of their alleged property, which included various items of jewellery, flats, houses and cash. 55.     The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of a breach of their right to a reasoned decision in respect of their complaints that they had acquired their properties as bona fide purchasers. 56 .     The individual applicants in applications nos.   21274/08 and 21904/08 also complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the hearings before the first-instance court had taken place in their absence. 57 .     The applicant in application no. 26193/08 complained under Article 8 of the Convention that her right to respect for her home had been breached on account of the confiscation of a flat and a summer house belonging to her and her family. 58 .     The applicants in applications nos. 21904/08 and 26193/08 complained under Article 13 of the Convention of the lack of effective domestic remedies on account of the fact that V.I.R.O. and Arena, the companies nominally fully owned by V. Insanov and A. Aliyeva respectively, had not been named as civil defendants in the domestic proceedings. 59 .     The individual applicant in application no. 21904/08, V.   Insanov, complained under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention that a de   facto travel ban had been imposed on him in connection with the criminal proceedings against his father. 60 .     The applicants in applications nos. 21904/08, 26193/08, 33248/08 and 36604/08 complained under Article 14 of the Convention that their cases had been decided by the domestic courts differently from the cases of the other civil defendants whose situation was comparable to theirs. THE LAW Joinder of the applications 61.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. Complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention 62.     The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention of a violation of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions on account of the restoration of State ownership of their properties. 63.     The individual applicants in applications nos. 21904/08 and 26193/08 also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention about the confiscation of their other alleged assets, which included various items of jewellery, flats, houses and cash (see paragraphs 41-42 above). 64.     Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention reads as follows: “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.” Restoration of State ownership of properties found to have been embezzled by A. Insanov and other criminal defendants (a)    The parties’ submissions 65.     The applicants disagreed with the findings and decisions of the domestic courts and argued that the restoration of State ownership of their properties without compensation had been unlawful and unjustified as they had purchased those properties in good faith and in accordance with law. 66.     The Government submitted that part of the complaint in respect of the applicant in application no. 26193/08 was incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention as one of the properties in question had been owned not by her but by Arena, a company owned by her. In respect of all the applications, the Government further submitted that the interference with the applicants’ rights had been lawful, had served the general interests of the community and had not imposed any excessive individual burden on the applicants. (b)    The Court’s assessment 67.     As to the Government’s objection ratione personae , the Court observes that Arena was a company that was formally fully owned by A.   Aliyeva, the applicant in application no. 26193/08. Nevertheless, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine the Government’s objection as, even accepting that the applicant could claim to be a victim of an alleged violation in respect of the property nominally owned by Arena, the complaint is in any event inadmissible for the following reasons. 68.     The Court considers that the properties in issue – recoverable though they proved to be – should be considered the applicants’ “possessions” within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 because the applicants, or companies formally fully owned by them, had their titles to them officially registered, and that the invalidation of those titles and the order to return the properties to the State was an interference with their right to the peaceful enjoyment of those possessions (see Belova v. Russia , no. 33955/08, §§   32 ‑ 33, 15 September 2020). 69.     The Court reiterates that Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention, which guarantees in substance the right to property, comprises three distinct rules. The first one, which is expressed in the first sentence of the first paragraph, lays down the principle of peaceful enjoyment of property in general. The second rule, in the second sentence of the same paragraph, covers deprivation of possessions and makes it subject to certain conditions. The third, contained in the second paragraph, recognises that the Contracting States are entitled, among other things, to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest. The second and third rules, which are concerned with particular instances of interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property, must be construed in the light of the general principle laid down in the first rule (see, among many authorities, Immobiliare Saffi v.   Italy [GC], no. 22774/93 , § 44, ECHR   1999 ‑ V). 70.     As to which exactly of the three above-mentioned property rules should apply to the applicants’ situation, the Court reiterates that where a confiscation measure has been imposed independently of the existence of a criminal conviction but rather as a result of separate “civil” (within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention) judicial proceedings aimed at the recovery of assets deemed to have been acquired unlawfully, such a measure, even if it involves the irrevocable forfeiture of possessions, nevertheless constitutes control of the use of property within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, among many other authorities, Air Canada v. the United Kingdom , 5 May 1995, § 34, Series A no. 316 ‑ A; Riela and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 52439/99 , 4 September 2001; Veits   v.   Estonia , no. 12951/11 , § 70, 15 January 2015; and Sun v. Russia , no.   31004/02 , § 25, 5 February 2009). Noting that no criminal charges were ever brought against the applicants, the Court considers that the same approach must be followed in the present case. In any event, notwithstanding which rule of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 applies, the principles governing the question of justification are substantially the sa