CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 27 juin 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .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 } .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 } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .sF1F8E4D4 { width:130.09pt; 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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sFF075836 { margin-right:7.05pt; margin-left:7.05pt; border-collapse:collapse; } .s2E16AA4 { width:5.02%; 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 } .sF79E9441 { width:11.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s1E1CDC56 { width:15.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s9FF227E5 { width:12%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s72C2249F { width:10.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s6835B238 { width:15%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sB5B1C99F { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; 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 } .sD35D798C { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sE043B711 { width:17.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s39650776 { height:58.1pt } .sA121B71C { width:5.02%; 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 } .sD7656B2A { width:11.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s76314BE6 { width:15.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sE2C8FB73 { width:12%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s95E771B1 { width:10.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB145D406 { width:15%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1BC3E3A6 { width:17.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 39834/16 and 68035/17 Alayif HASANOV against Azerbaijan The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 27 June 2024 as a Committee composed of:   Péter Paczolay , President ,   Gilberto Felici,   Raffaele Sabato , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the letters of the deceased applicant’s son dated 8   December 2023 and 22 March 2024, Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the reply of the deceased applicant’s son to those declarations, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s and his representatives’ details are set out in the appended table. The applicant’s complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention, and Articles 10 and 18 of the Convention concerning his criminal conviction for defamation (application no. 39834/16) and Articles 8, 10 and 18 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 concerning his disbarment following that conviction (application no. 68035/17) were communicated to the Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”). The applicant died in the course of the proceedings. His son, Mr Subhan Hasanli, expressed his wish to pursue the applications.   THE LAW Having regard to the fact that these two applications were lodged by the same applicant, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. Alleged violation of Articles 6, 8 and 10 of the Convention The Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article   37 of the Convention. The Government acknowledged a violation of the applicant’s rights under Articles 6 and 10 of the Convention in application no. 39834/16. They also acknowledged a violation of his rights under Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention in application no. 68035/17. They offered to pay the deceased applicant’s son the amounts detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases in accordance with Article   37 §   1   (c) of the Convention. The amounts 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 cases. The deceased applicant’s son was sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declarations. By a letter of 22 March 2024, his representative informed the Court that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declarations. He submitted, in particular, that while the admissions by the Government constituted sufficient acceptance of the core violations in both applications, the amounts offered were not adequate. The Court firstly notes that there was no objection from the Government, and it also accepts, that the deceased applicant’s son has standing to continue the proceedings in his late father’s stead. 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 applicants wish the examination of the cases 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 criminal conviction for defamation and disbarment (see, for example, Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan , no. 40984/07, §§ 78-105, 22   April 2010; Namazov v. Azerbaijan , no. 74354/13, §§ 40-52, 30 January 2020; Bagirov v. Azerbaijan , nos. 81024/12 and 28198/15, §§ 70-85 and 94 ‑ 104, 25 June 2020;   and Avaz Zeynalov v. Azerbaija n , nos. 37816/12 and 25260/14, §§ 113-28, 22 April 2021). Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declarations 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 applications in the parts covered by the Government’s unilateral declarations (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 applications in that part (Article   37 §   1 in fine ). Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declarations, the applications 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 cases out of the list as regards the complaints under Articles 6 and 10 of the Convention in application no. 39834/16, and the complaints under Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention in application no. 68035/17. Other alleged violations of the Convention The applicant also complained under Article 18 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 10 alone in application no. 39834/16, and both Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention in application no. 68035/17. He further complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in the latter application. Having regard to the facts of the cases, the Government’s unilateral declarations and the Court’s decision to strike out the applications as regards the complaints under Articles 6, 8 and 10 of the Convention, the Court considers that the main legal questions raised in the present applications have been resolved. It concludes, therefore, that there is no need to examine these parts of the applications (compare Bagirov, cited above, §§ 105-06, and Huseynov v. Azerbaijan [Committee] (dec.), no.   71401/17, §   16, 26   September 2023, with further references). For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations concerning Articles 6 and 10 of the Convention in application no.   39834/16 and Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention in application no.   68035/17, and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein; Finds that the applicant’s son has standing to pursue the application in his late father’s stead and decides to strike these parts of the applications covered by the Government’s unilateral declarations out of its list of cases in accordance with Article   37 §   1   (c) of the Convention; Decides   that there is no need to examine the remaining parts of the applications. Done in English and notified in writing on 18 July 2024.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Péter Paczolay   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Articles 6, 8, 10 and 18 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention (criminal conviction for defamation and disbarment) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Date of receipt of Government’s declarations Date of receipt of comments of the applicant’s heir Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage per application (in euros) [1] Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application (in euros) [2]     39834/16 29/06/2016 Alayif Hasan oglu HASANOV 1962 Deceased in 2023   Pursued by heir: Subhan HASANLI 1994 Ramute Remezaite London   Toby Collis London   Philip Leach London   Jessica Gavron London   Khalid Bagirov Baku 19/02/2024 22/03/2024 4,500 500     68035/17 07/09/2017 4,500 500     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant’s heir [2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant’s heir