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 } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s29A3AC47 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s37072F3C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9A177BD5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD58C010 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .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 VALIYEV AND GARAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN (Applications nos. 58689/17 and 68581/17)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 14 November 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Valiyev and Garayev 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 applications against Azerbaijan lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2.     The Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS 3.     The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4.     The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention of the unfair trial in administrative-offence proceedings. In application no.   58689/17, the applicant also complained under other provisions of the Convention. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 of the Convention 6.     Relying on Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention, the applicants complained that they had not committed any administrative offence and that they had not had a fair hearing, since the domestic courts’ decisions had lacked adequate reasoning and they had not had access to a lawyer of their own choice. The Court considers that these complaints fall to be examined solely under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Hasanov v. Azerbaijan, [Committee], no. 59202/12, § 16, 28 April 2022, and Ahmadli v. Azerbaijan, [Committee], 52286/11, § 7, 30 June 2022). 7.     In the leading cases of Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 60259/11, 15 October 2015; Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 67360/11 and 2   others, 11 February 2016; Hasanov and Majidli v. Azerbaijan, nos. 9626/14 and 9717/14, 7 October 2021; Savalanli v. Azerbaijan, [Committee], no.   30608/14, 14 January 2021; and Ibrahimov v. Azerbaijan, [Committee], no. 39466/16, 14 January 2021, 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 these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court finds that in the instant case the administrative-offence proceedings against the applicants, considered as a whole, were not in conformity with the guarantees of a fair hearing under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 9.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   6 of the Convention. remaining complaints 10.     Relying on Articles 10 and 18 of the Convention, in application no.   58689/17, the applicant also made additional complaints related to the same facts and legal issues which had been examined by the Court (see paragraphs 7-9 above). 11.     Having regard to the facts of the cases, the submissions of the parties and its findings under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal questions raised in application no.   58689/17 and there is no need to give a separate ruling on the remaining complaints (see, among other authorities, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014, and references cited therein; Mehman Aliyev and Others v. Azerbaijan [Committee], no. 46930/10 and 11 others, §§ 52-54, 20 May 2021; and Azer Ahmadov v. Azerbaijan , no. 3409/10, §§ 77-79, 22 July 2021). APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 12.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Yegorov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.   77208/16 and 4 others, 28 May 2019; Kuratov and Others v. Russia, [Committee], nos. 24377/15 and 2 others, 22 October 2019; Shaliyev v.   Azerbaijan , [Committee], no. 80814/17, 9 March 2023; and Safarov and others v. Azerbaijan , [Committee], nos. 1476/18 and 19 others, 23 March 2023), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Declares the complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the unfair trial in administrative-offence proceedings admissible and finds that there is no need to examine separately the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints raised in application no. 58689/17; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 of the Convention concerning the unfair trial in the administrative-offence proceedings; Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, 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; Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. 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 List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 of the Convention (unfair trial in administrative offence proceedings) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Administrative charges Penalty Name of court Date of final domestic decision Specific defects in respect of the main complaints Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant (in euros) [1] Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application (in euros) [2]     58689/17 27/07/2017 Rahim Shahkamal oglu VALIYEV 1992   Zibeyda   SADIGOVA Baku Article 535 of the CAO Thirty days’ administrative detention Baku Court of Appeal 27/01/2017 insufficient or manifestly unreasonable justification of court decisions and lack of own choice of legal assistance (see   Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan , no.   60259/11, §§ 83-94, 15 October 2015, and   Huseynli and Others v.   Azerbaijan , nos.   67360/11   and 2   others, §§ 119-34, 11   February 2016)   1,000 250     68581/17 14/08/2017 Yusif Khudamammad oglu GARAYEV 1963   Nemat Karimli Baku Articles 510 and 535 of the CAO Twenty-five days’ administrative detention Shaki Court of Appeal 02/03/2017 insufficient or manifestly unreasonable justification of court decisions and lack of own choice of legal assistance (see   Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan , no.   60259/11, §§ 83-94, 15 October 2015, and   Huseynli and Others v.   Azerbaijan , nos.   67360/11   and 2   others, §§ 119-34, 11   February 2016) 1,000 250 (to be paid directly to the representative Mr Nemat Karimli’s bank account)     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. [2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.