CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 28 septembre 2023

.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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s5CD26361 { font-family:Arial; color:#008000 } .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 } .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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s4222EE14 { width:11.52%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .s526F898F { width:14.1%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s16F4FA77 { width:11.54%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s779875C9 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.2pt; color:#424242 } .s66106939 { width:23.08%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sF314C99F { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sAB95A5CB { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#424242 } .sBB8C798C { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#424242 } .s41827EA2 { width:28.26%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sFD0FC8D9 { width:11.52%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s56C3D320 { width:14.1%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4ACDECBD { width:11.54%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4C5F7CEB { width:23.08%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC70D992E { width:28.26%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sB343B0AA { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 57739/18 Azer GASIMLI against Azerbaijan (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 28   September 2023 as a Committee composed of:   Krzysztof Wojtyczek , President ,   Lətif Hüseynov,   Ivana Jelić , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 29   November 2018, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s and his representative’s details are set out in the appended table. The applicant’s complaints under Article 11 of the Convention concerning the unlawful or disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies were communicated to the Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”). Complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under Article 6 of the Convention. THE LAW After unsuccessful friendly-settlement negotiations, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article   37 of the Convention. The Government acknowledged the violation of the applicant’s rights guaranteed by the Convention. They offered to pay the applicant the amounts detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article   37 §   1   (c) of the Convention. The amounts would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay these amounts within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case. The applicant was sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declaration several weeks before the date of this decision. The Court has not received a response from the applicant accepting the terms of the declaration. The Court observes that Article   37 §   1   (c) enables it to strike a case out of its list if: “... for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”. Thus, it may strike out applications under Article   37 §   1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued (see, in particular, the Tahsin Acar v.   Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) [GC], no.   26307/95, §§   75 ‑ 77, ECHR 2003-VI). The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the unlawful or disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies (see, for example, Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 60259/11, 15 October 2015, Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 67360/11 and 2 others, 11 February 2016, and Hasanov and Others v. Azerbaijan, [Committee], nos. 39919/07 and 14   others, 5 September 2019). In the absence of any arguments from the applicant to the contrary, the Court has no reasons to consider that the compensation offered by the Government constitutes inadequate or otherwise unreasonable redress for the violation of his Convention rights (see Ryabkin and Volokitin v. Russia (dec.), nos. 52166/08 and 8526/09, §§ 49‑50, 28 June 2016, and Igranov and Others v. Russia , nos. 42399/13 and 8 others, § 24, 20   March 2018, and, for a similar approach, Antovski and Others v. North Macedonia (dec.) [Committee], no. 68160/17, 8 December 2022). Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article   37 §   1   (c)). In the light of the above considerations, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article   37 §   1 in   fine ). Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application may be restored to the list in accordance with Article   37 §   2 of the Convention (see Josipović v.   Serbia (dec.), no.   18369/07, 4   March 2008). In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein; Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article   37 §   1   (c) of the Convention. Done in English and notified in writing on 19 October 2023.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Krzysztof Wojtyczek   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Articles 11 and 6 of the Convention (unlawful or disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies and unfair trial in administrative-offence proceedings) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Representative’s name and location Date of receipt of Government’s declaration Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage per applicant (in euros) [1] Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application (in euros) [2] 57739/18 29/11/2018 Azer   Agagasim oglu GASIMLI 1975   Elchin SADIGOV Baku 11/07/2023 2,600 250   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. [2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.