CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 6 novembre 2025

.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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .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 } .s6EC6BA2A { width:121.74pt; 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 } .s2D726B78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sCCD8911A { width:4.58%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; 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 } .s243CF174 { width:12.72%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s68FD14EF { width:17.46%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sAD436922 { width:22.22%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC010ADB6 { width:16.88%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sEC891DAD { width:26.14%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s3A013CA3 { font-family:Arial; color:#424242 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sCC7380B3 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#424242 } .s4BB4FF30 { width:4.58%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .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 } .s1FC748EF { width:12.72%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .s22EE7580 { width:17.46%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sFF125ADB { width:22.22%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .s184EB540 { width:16.88%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .sF6D66E1 { width:26.14%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 4441/23 and 33474/23 Nijad IBRAHIM against Azerbaijan and Aysel ALIYEVA against Azerbaijan (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 6   November 2025 as a Committee composed of:   Diana Kovatcheva , President ,   Canòlic Mingorance Cairat,   Vasilka Sancin , 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 declarations submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants and their representatives is set out in the appended table. The applicants’ complaints under Article 2 Protocol No. 4 of the Convention concerning the imposition of a travel ban on them by the domestic authorities were communicated to the Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”). The applicants’ complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under other provisions of the Convention. THE LAW Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. 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 the violation of the applicants’ rights guaranteed under the Convention. They offered to pay the applicants 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 and lifting of the travel ban will constitute the final resolution of the case. The applicants were sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declarations several weeks before the date of this decision. The Court has not received a response from the applicants accepting the terms of the declarations. 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 case-law concerning complaints relating to the imposition of travel bans and lack of an effective remedy in that regard (see, for example, Mursaliyev and Others v. Azerbaijan , nos. 66650/13 and 10   others, 13   December 2018). 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 (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 (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. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article   37 §   1   (c) of the Convention. Done in English and notified in writing on 27 November 2025.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Diana Kovatcheva   Acting Deputy Registrar   President     APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 2 Protocol No. 4 of the Convention and Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention (imposition of the travel ban, failure to execute a domestic judgment ordering its lifting and lack of an effective domestic remedy in this regard) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Representative’s name and location Date of receipt of Government’s declaration Amount awarded for pecuniar y and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     4441/23 23/12/2022 Nijad Ibad oglu IBRAHIM 1975   Zibeyda Sadigova Baku 04/11/2024 3,150     33474/23 31/08/2023 Aysel Arif gizi ALIYEVA 1991   Eldaniz Ismayilov Khirdalan 28/10/2024 4,050   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable