CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 12 mars 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s68D1564D { width:34.89pt; display:inline-block } .sDD6F64E2 { width:137.11pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block }     FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 24127/17 Mammad IBRAHIM against Azerbaijan   The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 12 March 2024 as a Committee composed of:   Krzysztof Wojtyczek , President ,   Lətif Hüseynov,   Erik Wennerström , judges , and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 March 2017, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 7 August 2023 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     The applicant, Mr Mammad Aziz oglu Ibrahim ( Məmməd Əziz oğlu İbrahim ), is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1966 and lives in Baku. He was represented before the Court by Mr Y. Imanov, a lawyer practising in Azerbaijan. 2.     The Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Əsgərov. 3.     The applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention alleging that his right to a reasoned judgment and the principles of equality of arms and adversarial proceedings had been breached was communicated to the Government. THE LAW 4.     After failed attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 7   August 2023 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article   37 of the Convention. The declaration provided as follows: “1.     The Government of the Republic of Azerbaijan hereby wish to express – by way of unilateral declaration – their acknowledgement of the fact that there was a violation of the applicant’s rights guaranteed in the Convention. 2.     The Government are prepared to pay to the applicant, Mr Mammad Aziz oglu IBRAHIM, the sum of EUR 3,600 (three thousand and six hundred euros), for any pecuniary damage or non-pecuniary damage and EUR 500 (five hundred euros) for costs and expenses incurred before the Court. This sum shall be free of any tax that may be applicable and shall be payable within three months from the date of the notification of the striking-out judgment of the Court pursuant to Article 37 of the European Convention on Human Rights. From the expiry of the above-mentioned period, simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. 3.     In the meantime, the Government will take all measures to reopen the cassation appeal proceedings in order to guarantee the examination of the applicant’s cassation appeal in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention. 4.     In the light of above, the Government would suggest that the circumstances of the present case allow the Court to reach the conclusion that there exists ‘any other reason’, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention, justifying to discontinue the examination of the application, and that, moreover, there are no reasons of a general character, as defined in Article 37 § 1 in fine , which would require the further examination of the case by virtue of that provision. Accordingly, the Government invite the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases.” 5.     In a letter of 25 September 2023, the applicant argued that there was no guarantee that future reopened proceedings before the Supreme Court would comply with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention. In particular, he submitted that the Government had failed to indicate the nature and scope of future legal measures and to note when the domestic procedure for the reopening of the proceedings would begin. He further contended that the amount of compensation provided in the Government’s unilateral declaration was not adequate. He also argued that accepting the unilateral declaration might allow the Government to avoid “responsibility for violations of fundamental rights under the Convention”. 6.     The Court reiterates that Article   37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article   37   §   1   (c) enables the Court in particular 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”. 7.     It also reiterates that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application 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. To this end, the Court has examined the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment ( Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no.   26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; see also WAZA Sp. z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26   June   2007,   and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.), no.   28953/03, 18   September   2007). 8.     The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Azerbaijan, its practice concerning complaints relating to the right to a reasoned judgment, equality of arms and adversarial proceedings (see, for example, Huseyn and Others v. Azerbaijan , nos.   35485/05 and 3 others, §§   175 and 198-203, 26 July 2011; Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan (no. 2) , no. 919/15, §§ 205-10, 16 November 2017; Zayidov v. Azerbaijan (no. 3) , no.   60824/08, §§ 87-110, 19 January 2023; and Dursun Aliyev v. Azerbaijan , no. 20216/14, §§ 115-45, 27 April 2023). 9.     Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s unilateral declaration, as well as the scope and extent of the various undertakings given therein, together with 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)) (compare Seydiyev v.   Azerbaijan (dec.), no.   13648/06, 20 May 2010; Jamiyev v.   Azerbaijan (dec.), no.   11916/06, 30 September 2010; and Aliyev v.   Azerbaijan [Committee] (dec.), no.   7477/15, 16 January 2020). 10.     Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, 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 ). 11.     Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application could 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). 12.     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 modalities 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 4 April 2024.     Liv Tigerstedt   Krzysztof Wojtyczek   Deputy Registrar   President