CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 21 septembre 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s37072F3C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9A177BD5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s5CD26361 { font-family:Arial; color:#008000 } .sD58C010 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 } .s17E903BE { width:3.01pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sB90861A5 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .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 } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s4EC3C151 { width:116.76pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sFF075836 { margin-right:7.05pt; margin-left:7.05pt; border-collapse:collapse; } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sB343B0AA { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super }   FIRST SECTION CASE OF MAMMADOV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN (Application no. 23689/14 and 7 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 21 September 2023   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Mammadov and Others v. Azerbaijan, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Krzysztof Wojtyczek , President ,   Lətif Hüseynov,   Ivana Jelić , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 31 August 2023, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in applications against Azerbaijan lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2.     The Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS 3.     The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4.     The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention of the unfair trial in administrative offence proceedings. Some of the applicants also complained under other provisions of the Convention. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 of the Convention 6.     Relying on Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention, the applicants complained that they had not committed any administrative offence and that they had not had a fair hearing, since the domestic courts’ decisions had lacked adequate reasoning. The Court considers that these complaints fall to be examined solely under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Hasanov v.   Azerbaijan, [Committee], no. 59202/12, § 16, 28 April 2022, and Ahmadli v. Azerbaijan , [Committee], 52286/11, § 7, 30 June 2022). 7.     In the leading cases of Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 60259/11, 15 October 2015, Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 67360/11 and   2   others, 11 February 2016, Hasanov and Majidli v. Azerbaijan, nos.   9626/14 and 9717/14, 7 October 2021, Savalanli v. Azerbaijan, [Committee], no.   30608/14, 14 January 2021, and Ibrahimov v. Azerbaijan, [Committee], no. 39466/16, 14 January 2021, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 8.     Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant cases the administrative offence proceedings against the applicants, considered as a whole, were not in conformity with the guarantees of a fair hearing under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 9.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention. remaining complaints 10.     Relying on Articles 6, 7, 10 and 18 of the Convention, some applicants also made additional complaints related to the same facts and legal issues which had been examined by the Court (see paragraphs 7-9 above). 11.     Having regard to the facts of the cases, the submissions of the parties and its findings under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal questions raised in the present applications and there is no need to give a separate ruling on the remaining complaints (see, among other authorities, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014, and references cited therein; Mehman Aliyev and Others v.   Azerbaijan [Committee], no.   46930/10   and 11 others, §§ 52-54, 20   May 2021; Azer   Ahmadov v. Azerbaijan , no.   3409/10, §§ 77-79, 22   July 2021; and Imranova and others v. Azerbaijan , [Committee], nos. 59462/14 and   17   others, § 21, 16 February 2023). APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 12.     Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” 13.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Yegorov and   Others   v. Russia   [Committee], nos.   77208/16   and 4   others, 28 May 2019; Kuratov and Others v. Russia, [Committee], nos. 24377/15 and 2 others, 22 October 2019; Shaliyev v.   Azerbaijan , [Committee], no. 80814/17, 9 March 2023; and Safarov and   others v. Azerbaijan , [Committee], nos. 1476/18 and 19 others, 23 March 2023), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Declares the complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention admissible and finds that there is no need to examine separately the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints raised by some applicants; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the unfair trial in administrative offence proceedings; Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; (b)   that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points; (c)   Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 21 September 2023, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   Viktoriya Maradudina   Krzysztof Wojtyczek   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 of the Convention (unfair trial in administrative offence proceedings) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Administrative charges Penalty Date of final domestic decision Name of court Specific defects in respect of the main complaints Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant (in euros) [1] Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application (in euros) [2]     23689/14 11/03/2014 Zaur Nazim oglu MAMMADOV 1994 Asabali MUSTAFAYEV Sumgayit   Ruslan MUSTAFAZADE Sumgayit Article 310 of the CAO (at the material time) Fifteen-days’ administrative detention Baku Court of Appeal 24/10/2013 art. 6 (1) – insufficient or manifestly unreasonable justification of court decisions (see Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan , no. 60259/11, §§ 83-87, 15 October 2015, and Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan , nos. 67360/11 and 2 others, §§ 119-24, 11   February 2016).   1,000 250 (to be paid directly to the representative Mr Ruslan Mustafazade’s bank account)     24061/15 30/04/2015 Khalid Bahman oglu GARAYEV 1981 Samira AGAYEVA Baku Article 310 of the CAO (at the material time) Twenty-five-days’ administrative detention Baku Court of Appeal 06/11/2014 art. 6 (1) – insufficient or manifestly unreasonable justification of court decisions (see Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan , no. 60259/11, §§ 83-87, 15 October 2015, and Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 67360/11 and 2 others , §§ 119-24, 11   February 2016). 1,000 250 (to be paid directly to the representative Ms Samira Agayeva’s bank account)       47633/15 31/08/2015 Razim Rza oglu RZAYEV 1964 Khalid BAGIROV Baku Articles 296 and 310 of the CAO (at the material time) Six-days’ administrative detention Shaki Court of Appeal 05/08/2015 art. 6 (1) – insufficient or manifestly unreasonable justification of court decisions (see Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan , no. 60259/11, §§ 83-87, 15 October 2015, and Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan , nos. 67360/11 and 2 others, §§ 119-24, 11   February 2016). 1,000 250 (to be paid directly to the representative Mr Khalid Bagirov’s bank account)     60146/16 06/10/2016 Ismayil Yahya oglu RASULOV 1957 Asabali MUSTAFAYEV Sumgayit   Ruslan MUSTAFAZADE Sumgayit Article 535 of the CAO Six-days’ administrative detention Baku Court of Appeal 30/08/2016 art. 6 (1) – insufficient or manifestly unreasonable justification of court decisions (see Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan , no. 60259/11, §§ 83-87, 15 October 2015, and Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan , nos. 67360/11 and 2 others, §§ 119-24, 11   February 2016). 1,000 250 (to be paid directly to the representative Mr Ruslan Mustafazade’s bank account)     60955/16 08/10/2016 Ruslan Abdulkhan oglu GARAYEV 1989 Asabali MUSTAFAYEV Sumgayit     Ruslan MUSTAFAZADE Sumgayit Articles 510 and 535 of the CAO Twenty-days’ administrative detention Sumgayit Court of Appeal 06/08/2016 art. 6 (1) – insufficient or manifestly unreasonable justification of court decisions (see Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan , no. 60259/11, §§ 83-87, 15 October 2015, and Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan , nos. 67360/11 and 2 others, §§ 119-24, 11   February 2016). 1,000 250 (to be paid directly to the representative Mr Ruslan Mustafazade’s bank account)     66391/16 31/10/2016 Amid Yusif oglu SULEYMANOV 1987 Nemat KARIMLI Baku Article 535 of the CAO Ten-days’ administrative detention Baku Court of Appeal 07/06/2016 art. 6 (1) – insufficient or manifestly unreasonable justification of court decisions (see Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan , no. 60259/11, §§ 83-87, 15 October 2015, and Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan , nos. 67360/11 and 2 others, §§ 119-24, 11   February 2016). 1,000 250 (to be paid directly to the representative Mr Nemat Karimli’s bank account)     77240/16 03/12/2016 Samir Rustam oglu HASANOV 1984 Yalchin IMANOV Sumgayit Articles 510 and 535 of the CAO Fifteen-days’ administrative detention Shaki Court of Appeal 04/06/2016 art. 6 (1) – insufficient or manifestly unreasonable justification of court decisions (see Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan , no. 60259/11, §§ 83-87, 15 October 2015, and Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan , nos. 67360/11 and 2 others, §§ 119-24, 11   February 2016).   1,000 250     64427/17 21/08/2017 Gadir Fizuli oglu AGAKISHIYEV 1988 Fariz NAMAZLI Baku Article 535 of the CAO Thirty-days’ administrative detention Sumgayit Court of Appeal 24/02/2017   art. 6 (1) – insufficient or manifestly unreasonable justification of court decisions (see Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan , no. 60259/11, §§ 83-87, 15 October 2015, and Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan , nos. 67360/11 and 2 others, §§ 119-24, 11   February 2016). 1,000 250     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. [2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.