CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 14 novembre 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 } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .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 } .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 } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s2F3EB0E4 { 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s26725EEE { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }     FIRST SECTION CASE OF KARIMLI AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN (Application no. 8928/20)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 14 November 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Karimli and Others v. Azerbaijan, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Krzysztof Wojtyczek , President ,   Lətif Hüseynov,   Erik Wennerström , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 17 October 2024, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application against Azerbaijan lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 25 January 2020. 2.     The Azerbaijani Government (“the   Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS 3.     The list of applicants and the relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table. 4.     The applicants complained under Article 11 of the Convention of the prohibition on holding peaceful assemblies or restrictions on the location, time or manner of conduct of public events. They also raised complaints under Article 13 of the Convention. THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   11 OF THE CONVENTION 5.     Relying on Article 11 of the Convention, the applicants complained of the prohibition on holding peaceful assemblies. 6.     The Court refers to the principles established in its case ‑ law regarding freedom of assembly (see Kudrevičius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], no.   37553/05, ECHR 2015). 7.     In the leading case of Mustafa Hajili and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos.   69483/13 and 2 others, 6 October 2022, 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 this complaint. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the interference with the applicants’ freedom of assembly was either based on legal provisions which did not meet the Convention’s “quality of law” requirements, or was not “necessary in a democratic society”. 9.     This complaint is therefore admissible and discloses a breach of Article 11 of the Convention. Remaining complaints 10.     The applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under Article 13 of the Convention. 11.     Having regard to the facts of the case and its findings under Article 11 of the Convention, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal question raised in the present application and there is no need to give a separate ruling on the remaining complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no.47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014). APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 12.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court finds it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table (see Bagirov and Others v. Azerbaijan [Committee], nos. 53360/18 and 27340/19, 8 February 2024). FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Declares the complaint under Article 11 of the Convention concerning the prohibition on holding peaceful assemblies admissible and finds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints; Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article   11 of the Convention concerning the prohibition on holding peaceful assemblies; Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay each applicant, 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. Done in English, and notified in writing on 14 November 2024, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   Viktoriya Maradudina   Krzysztof Wojtyczek   Acting Deputy Registrar   President       APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article 11 of the Convention (prohibition on holding peaceful assemblies or restrictions on the location, time or manner of conduct of public events) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Location Date of the public event planned Restrictions applied Final domestic decision Name of the court Date Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant (in euros) [1] Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application (in euros) [2] 8928/20 25/01/2020 (5 applicants) Ali Amirhuseyn oglu KARIMLI 1965   Ilham Telman oglu HUSEYNOV 1983   Vahid Ayyub oglu MAHARRAMOV 1958   Nuraddin Musa oglu MAMMADLI 1946   Emil Rafig oglu SALIMOV 1991   Fariz NAMAZLI Sumgayit March starting in front of the "Huseyn Javid" park and finishing 200 metres before the Parliament building, or two other alternative routes proposed by the applicants, Baku 15/12/2018 Prohibition on holding the planned public rally Supreme Court, 10/07/2019,   (The decision was served on the applicants on 25/07/2019) 1,500 250     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. [2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.