CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 6 juin 2024

.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 } .sF2E0A612 { margin-top:48pt; 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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s13C79B1A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sEC28DD31 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .s55E5497F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:10pt } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; 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 } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .sA32F7E3F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .s2A5FE92C { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDD998142 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6C2746C6 { margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .s6047437D { width:11.03pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sAABD1603 { margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s7CAC83C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .sC66C6FB1 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s90EB8675 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:53pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:8.2pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s68D1564D { width:34.89pt; display:inline-block } .s543FF837 { width:151.1pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } .sFF075836 { margin-right:7.05pt; margin-left:7.05pt; border-collapse:collapse; } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s856DF1B6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10.5pt } .sF8ED3D46 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10.5pt } .s1F59756B { height:59.65pt } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s346C5142 { border-top:0.75pt solid #838383; border-right:0.75pt solid #838383; border-left:0.75pt solid #838383; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF4886D70 { height:45.75pt } .s8699AF81 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right:0.75pt solid #838383; border-left:0.75pt solid #838383; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4DA46575 { height:38.85pt } .sD234500 { height:36.7pt } .s6E932242 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right:0.75pt solid #838383; border-left:0.75pt solid #838383; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sADAB756B { height:56.55pt } .sAD6D756B { height:56.75pt } .s57775D7A { height:28.15pt } .s1AC10776 { height:59.6pt } .s4F916575 { height:38.55pt } .s3DFB756B { height:58.35pt } .sC79C0776 { height:51.5pt } .sC75A0776 { height:51.7pt } .sAD80E8B1 { height:44.8pt } .s22535D7A { height:23.05pt } .sA8B60776 { height:56.4pt }   FIRST SECTION CASE OF ABBASALI AHMADOV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN (Applications nos. 46579/14 and 2 Others)     JUDGMENT   Art 6 § 1 (civil) • Fair hearing • Applicants’ inability to recover money deposited into saving accounts at a private bank • Domestic courts’ failure to provide adequate reasoning and to address applicants’ relevant arguments • Domestic proceedings fell short of fairness requirements   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 6 June 2024   FINAL   06/09/2024   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Abbasali Ahmadov and Others v. Azerbaijan, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Marko Bošnjak , President ,   Alena Poláčková,   Lətif Hüseynov,   Péter Paczolay,   Gilberto Felici,   Erik Wennerström,   Raffaele Sabato , judges , and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the applications (nos.   46579/14, 46596/14 and 58873/14) 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 16 Azerbaijani nationals (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated in the appended table; the decision to give notice to the Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”) of the applications; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 14 May 2024, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The present case mainly concerns the applicants’ complaints that they had been unable to recover money which they had deposited into savings accounts at a private bank, and raises issues under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1. THE FACTS 2.     The applicants’ details are set out in the appended table. The applicants were represented by Mr A. Mustafayev and Mr R. Mustafayev, lawyers based in Azerbaijan. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Əsgərov. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. Background information 5.     On various dates the applicants opened savings accounts and deposited various amounts in Azerbaijani manats (AZN) and/or foreign currencies –United States dollars (USD) and euros (EUR) – at the Baku branch of T., a private bank, with a 1% monthly interest rate. The applicants were issued with savings books and receipts confirming the deposits made, which were signed by Z.Y., the head of the relevant branch, and the accountant and the treasurer and sealed with the branch’s official seal. 6.     On 30 September 2008 criminal proceedings were initiated against Z.Y. and several staff members of the above-mentioned branch under, inter alia , Articles   178, 179, 308, 313 and 320 of the Criminal Code (see paragraphs 38-42 below). Z.Y. was accused of forming an organised group with the staff members in question; of embezzling large amounts of money between 2005 and 2008 by way of accepting money from various depositors without transferring part of those amounts to the bank’s treasury; and of knowingly entering false information on official documents, specifically, savings books, deposit contracts and receipts, sealing them with the official seal of the branch and presenting them to the depositors in order to create the impression that the deposit contracts had been finalised. According to the indictment, Z.Y. had used the money for his own business activities and shared the income with the members of the group and depositors in the form of additional interest exceeding the 1% monthly interest rate agreed under the deposit contracts. Z.Y. was also accused of forging documents for allocating loans, in breach of internal procedures and without confirmation from the main office of the bank, and taking the allocated money for his own use while formally documenting loans under the names of other persons (his brother and other acquaintances). Court proceedings Applications nos. 46579/14 and 46596/14 Civil proceedings 7 .     On various dates in 2008 and 2009 the applicants in application no.   46579/14 and seven of the eleven applicants in application no. 46596/14 brought civil proceedings against the bank, requesting the return of the money deposited into their accounts and the accrued interest. 8 .     On various dates between December 2008 and August 2009 the first ‑ instance courts, referring to, among other provisions, Articles 944.1, 946.1, 947.2 and 1099.1 of the Civil Code (see paragraphs 49-51 and 53 below), partly granted their claims and ordered the return of the deposited money. The courts held that a written deposit contract had been signed between the applicants and the bank, the money had been deposited into the bank accounts, payment receipts had been signed by the accountant and the treasurer and sealed with the branch’s official stamp and the applicants had been issued with savings books. They further noted that the bank was responsible for following the relevant procedures and the fact that an employee had failed to transfer the money deposited by a depositor to the bank’s treasury and had taken it for his or her own personal use did not absolve the bank from honouring its obligations under the bank deposit contract. As to the accrued interest, the courts held that, with the exception of the proceedings concerning the claim of the fourth applicant in application no. 46579/14, since the applicants had requested the return of their deposits before the termination of the bank deposit contracts, they were not entitled to receive the money under the provisions of those contracts. In the proceedings concerning the claim of the fourth applicant in application no. 46579/14, the first-instance court also awarded a certain sum for accrued interest. 9 .     Following appeals by the parties and at the bank’s request, on various dates between April 2009 and August 2012 the Baku Court of Appeal decided to suspend the proceedings pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings (see paragraphs 10-25 below). Criminal proceedings 10 .     Despite the Court’s explicit request to submit a copy of the investigation file, the parties have not done so. It appears that by a decision of the investigator, given on an unspecified date, the applicants and the bank were recognised as injured parties in the criminal proceedings. It also appears that the applicants in application no. 46579/14 lodged civil claims indicating the bank as the respondent. The fourth applicant in application no. 46596/14 also lodged a civil claim indicating Z.Y. as the respondent. 11 .     During a hearing before the Court of Serious Crimes, Z.Y. denied the charges, in particular that of forming an organised group. He submitted that he had himself taken the money deposited by the depositors and had used it for his business, while giving several of the depositors, including the second and third applicants in application no. 46579/14, the seventh and tenth applicants in application no. 46596/14 and the applicant in application no.   58873/14, additional interest (between 3% and 6%) above the 1% monthly interest agreed under the deposit contracts. 12 .     During the hearing before the trial court, some of the applicants submitted that they had known Z.Y. personally (the fourth applicant in application no.   46579/14 and the eighth and tenth applicants in application no. 46596/14) or that they had chosen the Baku branch for opening a deposit account following the recommendation of acquaintances or friends (the third applicant in application no. 46579/14 and the fourth, fifth and seventh applicants in application no. 46596/14). The third applicant in application no.   46579/14 submitted that Z.Y. had promised him a 1% monthly interest rate and a flat in a building under construction or another property if he did not withdraw his deposit from the bank for a certain time. The fifth applicant in application no.   46596/14 submitted that his acquaintance had told him that he would receive an additional 3% interest but that he had not received any amount in that connection. The seventh applicant in application no. 46596/14 made a conflicting statement, submitting that she had been promised an additional 3% interest but then noting in the same statement that she had not been promised any additional interest rate. The eighth applicant in application no. 46596/14 submitted that Z.Y. had promised him a monthly 4% interest. The remaining applicants submitted that they had not agreed on any additional interest and all the applicants, except the eighth applicant in application no. 46596/14 who admitted having received monthly 4% interest for two months, denied having received any amounts as additional interest. At the hearing all the applicants, including the fourth applicant in application no.   46596/14, requested that the bank repay their money. The sixth applicant in application no. 46596/14 requested the repayment of his money both from the bank and from Z.Y. 13.     An expert opinion drawn up on 27 January 2009 concluded that AZN   2,493,932.09 (approximately EUR 2,384,406 at the relevant time) was missing from the treasury of the Baku branch; that AZN 10,285,396 (approximately EUR 9,833,692) – the amount deposited by 105 depositors – had not been disclosed in the records; and that AZN 1,467,410 (approximately EUR 1,402,966) had been unlawfully withdrawn from four depositors’ accounts. 14 .     On 27 April 2010 the Court of Serious Crimes convicted Z.Y. and several other staff members of offences under the Criminal Code, including under Articles 178.3.1, 178.3.2, 179.3.1, 179.3.2, 313 and 320.2 (see paragraphs 38-39 and 41-42 below), and sentenced them to several years’ imprisonment. The court established that some of the depositors had received certain sums as additional interest, which amounted to more than the interest that had officially been agreed under the deposit contracts. However, this finding did not concern any of the applicants in the present case, including the eighth applicant in application no. 46596/14. The court held that whereas the first, third and tenth applicants in application no. 46596/14 and others had indicated that they were claiming damages from the bank, the court was “guided by the requirements of Article 183.2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure” (“the CCrP”; see paragraph 46 below). It accordingly dismissed their argument without any specific reasoning and held that the damage incurred by all applicants, that is, the deposited amounts, had to be repaid by the accused persons. The court also ordered that Z.Y.’s properties, namely a wedding hall, a house and a non-residential property, in respect of which an attachment order had been applied, be allocated to compensation for that damage. 15 .     The applicants appealed, submitting that they had lawfully deposited their money with the bank and had been provided with the relevant official payment receipts and savings books. They argued that the convicted persons had appropriated the bank’s money, not theirs, and had therefore committed criminal offences against the bank. They further argued that since the convicted persons had committed those criminal offences while on duty, the bank was liable for the damage incurred by them, in accordance with Articles   1099.1 and 1099.2 of the Civil Code (see paragraph 53 below). 16 .     The sixth applicant in application no. 46596/14 also submitted that while he had not lodged any civil claim in the criminal proceedings, the trial court had arbitrarily decided that the convicted persons had to pay damages, rather than the bank. He relied on Article 180.2 of the CCrP (see paragraph 45 below), arguing that he had a right to claim damages in separate civil proceedings. The seventh applicant in application no. 46596/14 complained, in addition, that the amount of her deposited money had not been established correctly by the court. The applicants requested the appellate court to overturn the trial court’s judgment in so far as it ordered damages to be paid by the convicted persons and to hold that the bank was responsible for repaying their money. 17 .     Z.Y. appealed, arguing, among other things, that the confiscated properties did not belong to him, but to his father. He also contested the classification of his offence as fraud and alleged that that had only served the purpose of absolving the bank from the obligation to repay the depositors’ money. Z.Y.’s father also lodged an appeal in which he complained of a violation of his property rights. 18 .     On 30 March 2011 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants’ and Z.Y.’s appeals. It held that although the applicants had requested the repayment of their money from the bank, the trial court had correctly decided that the accused persons were liable for the damages, in line with Article   183.2 of the CCrP. It found that since the confiscated properties had “factually” belonged to Z.Y., they had been allocated to compensation for the damage incurred by the applicants. It left Z.Y.’s father’s appeal unexamined, finding that, as he had not been recognised as a civil claimant in the criminal proceedings, he had to be considered not to have a right to lodge an appeal. 19 .     The applicants lodged cassation appeals, reiterating their previous arguments. They referred to, among other provisions, Articles 944.1 and 1099.1 of the Civil Code, Article 31.1 of the Law on Banks (see paragraphs 49, 53 and 60 below), Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. They further added that the sale of the confiscated properties would not ensure the repayment of the significantly high amount of damage incurred by all the depositors. 20 .     By judgments delivered between 15 November 2011 and 7 November 2012 the Supreme Court quashed the appellate court’s judgment and remitted the cases for fresh examination. The Supreme Court’s reasoning in those judgments may be summarised as follows. 21 .     The Supreme Court held firstly that the appellate court’s decision, in so far as it concerned the award in respect of the damage incurred by the injured parties, had been contrary to the factual circumstances of the case and the law. It further held that, as established by the courts, Z.Y. and the other convicted persons had committed the offences in question while lawfully holding their posts within the bank, using its official documents and acting in line with the bank’s activities. The court held, referring to Articles 1099.1 and 1099.2 of the Civil Code, that the bank therefore had to be held liable for the civil offence (delict) committed by its employees (see paragraph 53 below). 22 .     It further held that according to the material in the case file, some of the injured parties had not lodged a civil claim, while some of the others had done so and indicated the bank as the respondent (see paragraph 10 above). Moreover, in their appeals and cassation appeals, as well as at the court hearings, the injured parties had requested the repayment of their money from the bank (see paragraphs, 12, 15 and 19 above). Referring to Articles   180.2 and 188 of the CCrP (see paragraphs 45 and 48 below) and Articles 54.1 and 218.3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“the CCP”; see paragraphs 55 and 57 below), the Supreme Court found that the lower courts had, inter alia , failed to duly examine the civil claims to determine whether the respondent had been correctly indicated or to discuss the need for the replacement of the indicated respondent with the correct one. It also held that the courts in the criminal proceedings were not authorised to determine of their own motion the civil respondent, unless in exceptional circumstances where an injured party was unable to personally defend his or her civil claim. Making additional reference to some of the first-instance courts’ judgments delivered in the civil proceedings (see paragraph 8 above), the Supreme Court decided to grant the cassation appeals. 23 .     On 22 May 2013 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s judgment of 27 April 2010 (see paragraph 14 above). It held that Z.Y. and other convicted persons had defrauded the injured parties and had committed a criminal offence; their actions could not, therefore, be considered a civil offence (delict). It found that the bank could not be held liable in such case and that it had itself been recognised as an injured party in the criminal case. The court also held that it had been proved that the injured parties had given their money, not to the bank, but to Z.Y., whom they had known as a businessman, and that they had received an additional 3%-4% in monthly interest rates. It further held that some of the injured parties had requested the repayment of their money from Z.Y. In this connection it referred to requests by the second and eleventh applicants in application no.   46596/14 to withdraw their claim against the bank while requesting the repayment of their money from Z.Y. (copies of those requests are not available in the case file). As regards the award of damages, the court briefly held that the amount of damage incurred by each injured party had been proved on the basis of the material in the case file and the court upheld its conclusion in that regard without engaging in an examination of the points raised by the Supreme Court in that connection. 24 .     The applicants lodged cassation appeals. In addition to their previous arguments (see paragraphs 15-16 and 19 above), they complained that the appellate court had failed to examine the issues raised by the Supreme Court, in breach of Article 420 of the CCP (see paragraph 59 below). The applicants (including the second and eleventh applicants in application no.   46596/14) reiterated, in particular, that (i) Z.Y. had not committed the criminal offence against them, but against the bank; (ii) the bank was directly responsible for its contractual obligations and therefore had to return their money and then recover it from the convicted persons if it wished to do so; (iii) the appellate court’s conclusion concerning the award of damages, in the absence of civil claims lodged against the convicted persons, was contrary to the provisions of domestic law. 25 .     By a final judgment of 22 November 2013 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicants’ cassation appeals, holding that the applicants’ argument that the bank should be liable for the damage incurred by them was unsubstantiated and that the lower courts had reached the right conclusion in that regard. Resumption of the civil proceedings 26 .     In the meantime, in June and August 2011, the civil proceedings (see paragraphs 7-9 above) were apparently resumed before the appellate court in the cases of the first and second applicants in application no. 46596/14. The court, referring to the judgment of 27 April 2010 (see paragraph 14 above) and the conclusion reached therein, overturned the first-instance courts’ judgments which had awarded damages to the applicants. 27.     On 1 December 2011 and 30 October 2012 the Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s judgments. 28.     It is not clear from the case file whether the civil proceedings concerning the claims of the remaining applicants in application no. 46596/14 were subsequently resumed. As to the applicants in application no. 46579/14, they did not pursue their claims after the stay of their respective civil proceedings. Application no. 58873/14 29 .     On an unspecified date the applicant brought civil proceedings against the bank before the Narimanov District Court, requesting it to order the bank to return his deposit and to pay him interest on that amount. 30.     On 1 February 2013 the Narimanov District Court partly granted his claim, ordering the bank to return the deposited amount on the basis of similar reasons as provided by the courts in the above-mentioned civil proceedings (see paragraph 8 above). 31 .     Following appeals by both parties, on 7 June 2013 the Baku Court of Appeal overturned the district court’s judgment, referring to Article 82.4 of the CCP (see paragraph 56 below) and the Court of Serious Crimes’ judgment of 27 April 2010 (see paragraph 14 above). It held, in particular, that it was clear from the latter judgment that Z.Y. had defrauded depositors, including the applicant, and had appropriated his money. 32.     The applicant lodged a cassation appeal, raising arguments similar to those presented by the other applicants in the criminal proceedings. He also added that he had not been recognised as an injured party in the criminal proceedings and that no award had been made to him under the Court of Serious Crimes’ judgment of 27 April 2010; the appellate court’s conclusion that he had also been defrauded by the convicted persons and that court’s dismissal of his claim with reference to Article 82.4 of the CCP were therefore “incomprehensible”. 33 .     On 14 February 2014 the Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s judgment, reiterating the reasons given. It also held that the applicant had lodged an application with the investigating authority identifying Z.Y. as a respondent and had been recognised as a civil claimant by a decision of the investigating authority of 30 January 2009. However, he had later applied to have his “powers as an injured party terminated” and had subsequently initiated separate civil proceedings (copies of the relevant decision and applications have not been submitted to the Court). Further developments 34.     On 1 February 2016 the bank’s licence was revoked. 35 .     It is apparent from the material in the case file that the non-residential property belonging to Z.Y. was offered to the injured parties following a failure to sell it at auction. Having regard to requests by the first applicant in application no. 46579/14 and the second, ninth and eleventh applicants in application no. 46596/14, the bailiff decided on 19 December 2017 to transfer the property, which was valued at AZN 230,000, to them. According to the applicants, the value of the property had been divided among them in the following way: the first applicant in application no. 46579/14 had received AZN   20,000, that is, the full amount of his deposit; the second, ninth and eleventh applicants in application no. 46596/14 had received AZN 82,000, AZN   26,000 and AZN 102,000 respectively. 36 .     It is further apparent from the material in the case file that, on an unspecified date, Z.Y.’s father lodged a claim with the domestic courts, challenging the confiscation of the wedding hall and the house ordered under the judgment of 27 April 2010 (see paragraph 14 above) and arguing that those properties belonged to him and not to Z.Y. On 3 August 2018 the Pirallahi District Court held that his rights to those properties should be restored. Consequently, the above-mentioned properties were not allocated for paying damages to the applicants. 37.     At the time of the most recent communication with the parties in 2022, the applicants, except the first applicant in application no. 46579/14, had been unable to recover, fully or partially (see paragraph 35 above), the damages awarded to them in the criminal proceedings. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK THE 2000 CRIMINAL CODE 38 .     At the material time, Article 178 of the Criminal Code provided as follows:   Article 178.   Fraud “178.1.     Fraud, that is to say, taking possession of property or acquisition of property rights of others by abuse of trust or deceit, shall be punishable by a fine in the amount of [AZN 100 to AZN 800], or 360 to 480 hours of community service, or correctional work for a period of up to two years, or imprisonment for a period of up to two years ... ... 178.3.     Commission of the same acts: 178.3.1. by an organised group; 178.3.2     by inflicting significant damage; ... shall be punishable by imprisonment for a period of seven to twelve years. ...” 39 .     At the material time, Article 179 of the Code provided: Article 179. Embezzlement and squandering “179.1. Embezzlement or squandering, that is, misappropriation of property belonging to another which has been entrusted to the perpetrator, shall be punishable by a fine in the amount of AZN 100 to AZN 500, or 360 to 480 hours of community service, or imprisonment for a period of up to two years. 179.2. Commission of the same acts: 179.2.1. by a group of persons conspiring in advance; 179.2.2. repeatedly; 179.2.3. by means of abusing official authority; 179.2.4. inflicting significant damage; ... 179.3. Commission of the acts set out in Articles 179.1 and 179.2 of this Code: 179.3.1. by an organised group; 179.3.2. in particularly large amounts; ... shall be punishable by imprisonment for a period of seven to twelve years” 40.     At the material time, Article 308 of the Code provided: Article 308.   Abuse of official power “308.1.     Abuse of official power, that is, the deliberate use by an official of his official authority or the deliberate failure of an official to use his official authority when required, contrary to official interests, in connection with the execution of his official duties and with the aim of obtaining an unlawful advantage for himself or for third parties, where this causes serious harm to the rights and lawful interests of individuals or legal entities or to the interests of society or the State protected by law, shall be punishable by a fine in the amount AZN of 1,000 to AZN 2,000, or deprivation of the right to hold a certain office or engage in a certain activity, or correctional work for a period of up to two years, or imprisonment for a period of up to three years; 308.2.     The acts set out in Article 308.1 of this Code which have serious consequences or are committed with the aim of interfering with election (or referendum) results shall be punishable by imprisonment for a period of three to eight years with deprivation of the right to hold a certain office or engage in a certain activity for a period of up to three years.” 41 .     At the material time, Article 313 of the Code provided: Article 313.   Forgery by an official “Forgery by an official, that is, the entry by an official of information which is known to be false into official documents or information resources, or the making of changes by him or her in such documents or information resources which distort original content, where such acts are committed out of greed or some other personal interest, shall be punishable by a fine in the amount of AZN 500 to AZN 1,000, or correctional work for a period of one to two years, or imprisonment for a period of up to two years with deprivation of the right to hold a certain office or engage in a certain activity for a period of up to two years.” 42 .     At the material time, Article 320 of the Code provided: Article 320.   Falsification, illegal fabrication and sale of official documents, awards issued by the State, seals, stamps and forms or use of falsified documents “320.1.     Falsification, illegal fabrication or sale, with the purpose of its use, of a certificate or other official document granting rights or discharging from obligations as well as fabrication and sale with the same purpose of falsified awards of the Republic of Azerbaijan, seals, stamps and forms shall be punishable by a fine in the amount of [AZN 200 to AZN 500], or correctional work for a period of up to two years, or imprisonment for a period of up to two years. 320.2.     Deliberate use of falsified documents specified in Article 320.1 of the present Code shall be punishable by a fine in the amount of [AZN 200 to AZN 500], or 240 to 300 hours of community service, or correctional work for a period of up to one year, or imprisonment for the same period ...” THE 2000 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 43 .     Article 87.1 of the CCrP provides that if there are sufficient grounds to find that an individual has directly suffered non-pecuniary or pecuniary damage as a result of a criminal offence, he or she is to be recognised as an injured party. Under Article 87.4 of the Code a person is recognised as an injured party after a decision to that effect is taken by an investigator, a prosecutor or a court. Article 87.5 of the Code provides that if, after a person is recognised as an injured party, no grounds are established to maintain that status, an investigator, a prosecutor or a court is to terminate that person’s participation in the criminal proceedings as an injured party by a reasoned decision. 44.     Article 89.1 of the CCrP provides that if there are sufficient grounds showing that pecuniary damage has been inflicted as a result of a criminal offence, a person who lodges a claim in respect of damages in criminal proceedings is to be recognised as a civil claimant. Article 89.2 provides that the decision on recognition of a person as a civil claimant is to be taken by an investigator, a prosecutor or a court. 45 .     Article 180.2 of the Code provides that   if a person has not lodged a civil claim within the criminal proceedings, he or she is entitled to lodge a civil claim in civil proceedings. 46 .     Article 183.2 of the Code provides that in the context of criminal proceedings, a civil claim will be lodged against an accused person or a person who can be held materially liable for the actions of the accused person. Article 183.3 provides that a civil claim can only be lodged in writing. Such claim should state the person against whom the claim is lodged, the grounds for the claim and its amount. 47.     Article 184 of the Code provides that if a claim in the criminal proceedings is not admissible, is not lodged against the correct party or does not comply with the requirements under Article 183.3 of the Code, the prosecuting authority can refuse to accept it. 48 .     Article 188 of the Code provides that if the documents and evidence in the criminal case file so substantiate, the court may, in exceptional cases where the person who lodged a civil claim is unable to personally defend the claim during the court proceedings, decide of its own motion to award that person compensation for damage inflicted as a result of a criminal offence. THE 2000 CIVIL CODE 49 .     Article 944.1 of the Code defines the deposit contract as a contract in which one party (bank) accepts an amount of money (deposit) received from another party (depositor) and undertakes to return the deposited amount to the depositor and pay interest on it under the terms and conditions stipulated in the contract. 50.     Article 946.1 provides that the bank deposit contract must be finalised in writing. The written form of the deposit contract is considered to have been complied with when the deposit is confirmed with a savings book, a bank or deposit certificate or any other relevant document issued by the bank to the depositor which meets the requirements provided in respect of such documents under the law. Under Article 946.2 of the Code, failure to comply with the written form of the deposit contract will lead to its being declared invalid. 51 .     Article 947.2 of the Code provides that the bank must immediately pay at least one quarter of the amount of the deposit at the depositor’s first request and the rest within five business days. 52 .     Article 1096 of the Code provides that a civil-law offence (delict) is an action or failure to act, in breach of the provisions of civil law, which causes direct infliction of damage to another person. The person who commits such offence bears civil liability. 53 .     Article 1099.1 of the Code provides that a legal or physical person is responsible for a civil-law violation (delict) committed by his/her/its employee and must pay compensation for the damage caused by the employee during the performance of his or her duties. Under Article 1099.2 of the Code, an employee is a natural person who works on the basis of an employment contract. 54.     Article 1114.1 of the Code provides that a person who has paid compensation for the damage caused by another person (for example, an employee carrying out his or her job duties or the driver of a vehicle) has the right to claim back that amount. THE 2000 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 55 .     Article 54.1 of the CCP provides that where a claim is brought against a person who is not liable under the claim, the court can, subject to the claimant’s consent, allow the replacement of the initial respondent with the appropriate respondent. 56 .     Article 82.4 of the Code provides that a court judgment delivered in a criminal case is obligatory, after its entry into force, in order for a court in civil proceedings to determine whether or not the relevant unlawful actions were committed and to indicate the person who committed such actions. 57 .     Article 218.3 of the Code provides that a judge must deliver a judgment in accordance with claims lodged by persons participating in the case. 58.     Article 254.1.4 of the Code provides that a judge must stay the proceedings if the examination of the case is not possible until, for example, another pending criminal or civil case is decided. 59 .     Article 420 of the Code provides that instructions set out in a decision by the cassation court are binding for the court re-examining the case.   In its decision of 28 February 2012, the Constitutional Court held that when quashing the appellate court’s judgment, the cassation court must, inter alia , interpret the legal norms and explain the essence of the mistakes made in a precise, clear and convincing manner. Failure by the appellate court to follow the binding instructions by the cassation court could lead to the wrongful resolution of the case and re-examination of its decision. The Constitutional Court also held that the cassation court could not give any instructions as to what conclusion the court re-examining the case had to reach, as such instructions would be in conflict with the constitutional principle of independence of judges. THE LAW ON BANKS OF 16 JANUARY 2004 60 .     Article 31.1 of the Law provides that banks are to implement their management and operations in a reliable and prudential manner in accordance with the requirements of domestic legislation. THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT’S DECISION OF 18 APRIL 2022 61.     In its decision of 18 April 2022 the Constitutional Court held that for Article 1099 of the Civil Code (see paragraph 53 above) to be applicable, the examination of whether the damage inflicted by an employee was related to the employer’s activities was of utmost importance. If that was not the case and the offence was not related to the carrying out of the employee’s job duties, then the obligation to pay compensation for the damage inflicted fell to the wrongdoer, that is the employee. THE LAW         PRELIMINARY REMARKS As regards the eighth applicant in application no. 46596/14 62.     The Court notes at the outset that the eighth applicant in application no.   46596/14, Mr Sayad Kazimov, died   on 22 November 2020 and that his son, Mr Elmir Kazimov, has expressed his interest in pursuing the application before the Court. 63.     The Court notes that in various cases in which an applicant has died in the course of the Convention proceedings, it has taken into account the statements of the applicant’s heirs or of close family members expressing the wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court. The Court has accepted that the next-of-kin or heir may in principle pursue the application, provided that he or she has sufficient interest in the case (see Tagiyev and Huseynov v.   Azerbaijan , no. 13274/08, § 24, 5 December 2019, with further references). 64.     In view of the above and having regard to the circumstances of the present case, the Court accepts that Mr Elmir Kazimov has a legitimate interest in pursuing the application in his late father’s stead (compare Alasgarov and Others v. Azerbaijan , no. 32088/11, § 25, 10 November 2022). However, for reasons of convenience, the text of this judgment will continue to refer to Mr   Sayad Kazimov as “the eighth applicant in application no.   46596/14”, even though only Mr Elmir Kazimov is today to be regarded as having the status of the eighth applicant in application no.   46596/14 before the Court. As regards the Government’s preliminary objection to the admissibility of application no. 58873/14 65.     Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment of 14 February 2014 (see paragraph 33 above), the Government submitted that although the applicant in application no. 58873/14 was recognised as an injured party on 30 January 2009, he ceased to be involved in the criminal proceedings at his own request. The Government argued that the civil proceedings initiated by the applicant against the bank could not be considered an effective remedy for this purpose as “his property rights had been violated as a result of [a] criminal offence”. They therefore argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies “in connection with his complaints”. 66.     The applicant argued that he had not been recognised as an injured party in the criminal proceedings. He further argued that he had exhausted the domestic remedies by lodging appeals before all instances of courts in the civil proceedings that he had initiated against the bank - the person who had to repay his deposited money. 67.     The Court considers that the Government’s preliminary objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies is closely linked to the merits of the applicant’s complaints and that it should therefore be joined to the merits of the case. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 68.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment (Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 69.     The applicants complained that their right to a fair trial had been breached on account of the domestic courts’ unfair and unreasoned judgments. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...” Admissibility Applicability (a)    Applications nos. 46579/14 and 46596/14 (i)       The parties’ submissions 70.     The applicants argued that the final judgment delivered in the criminal proceedings had been of a decisive nature in respect of their ability to recover their deposits