CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 septembre 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sC8636342 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse } .sF5C9E8B1 { height:46.3pt } .sD1CDDC62 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s2490CDBC { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s26ADB50A { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sFD306575 { height:35.55pt } .s2F4AF114 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6E62424B { margin-left:29.67pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:6.33pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .s898DAE93 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sB71F2881 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF1E03450 { margin-left:34.12pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.88pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .sBCA334AF { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7CB6920E { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s62945D10 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   Communicated on 11 September 2017   FIFTH SECTION Application no 66650/13 Azad MURSALIYEV against Azerbaijan and 10 other applications (see list appended) STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicants are Azerbaijani nationals. Their years of birth and places of residence are listed in the Appendix. They are represented before the Court by various lawyers practising in Azerbaijan (see Appendix). The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. On different dates between 2012 and 2016 (see Appendix) the applicants learned that restrictions on their right to leave Azerbaijan were imposed and that they were no longer allowed to leave the country. It appears from the documents in the case files that in all the cases the restrictions in question were imposed by the investigating authorities, in the absence of any judicial decision, within the framework of various criminal proceedings in which the applicants were not convicted, accused or suspected persons, but were questioned only as witnesses. On various dates the applicants brought an action claiming unlawfulness of the restrictions imposed on them, either by lodging a complaint with the administrative courts, or by lodging a complaint with the ordinary courts under the procedure concerning the review of the lawfulness of procedural actions or decisions by the prosecuting authorities under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Some of the applicants used both of the above ‑ mentioned remedies. By final decisions adopted on various dates, by the Supreme Court in the administrative proceedings and by the Baku Court of Appeal in the proceedings relating to the review of the lawfulness of the prosecuting authorities’ actions and decisions, the domestic courts dismissed the applicants’ complaints (see Appendix). In their decisions, the above ‑ mentioned courts either refused to examine the applicants’ complaints on the merits declaring themselves incompetent to examine such a complaint, or dismissed the complaints after having examined them on the merits. COMPLAINTS The applicants complain under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention that their right to leave Azerbaijan was violated by travel bans imposed on them by the domestic authorities. Relying both on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, the applicants in applications nos. 66650/13, 8051/17, 8702/17 and 12870/17, relying solely on Article 13 of the Convention, the applicants in applications nos.   62775/16, 76071/16, 21246/17 and 37696/17, and relying solely on Article 6 of the Convention, the applicants in applications nos. 43327/16 and   68722/16 complain about the violation of their rights protected under the Convention. In particular, they complain that they had no effective remedy at the domestic level and that the domestic authorities violated their right to a court by refusing to examine their complaints on the merits. Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant in application no.   76071/16 complains that the travel ban imposed on him had an impact on his health as he was prevented from seeing his doctors abroad despite the fact that he was in need of an eye operation which should be carried out abroad. QUESTIONS COMMON QUESTIONS 1.     Was any restriction placed on the applicants’ freedom to leave the territory of the respondent State, as guaranteed by Article 2 § 2 of Protocol   No. 4? If so, was that restriction in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 2 § 3 of Protocol No. 4?   2.   Did the applicants, except the applicant in application no. 24749/16, have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, as required by Article   13 of the Convention? CASE SPECIFIC QUESTION IN RESPECT OF APPLICATION   76071/16 1. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, as a result of the travel ban imposed on him? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2? aPPENDIX   No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant name date of birth place of residence Represented by Date on which the applicant learned about the restriction Relevant final court decisions in the domestic proceedings   66650/13 07/10/2013 Azad Ogtay oglu MURSALIYEV 25/10/1970 Baku     2 November 2012 The Baku Court of Appeal’s decision of 12 April 2013   24749/16 22/04/2016 Aynura Imran gizi IMRANOVA 11/11/1976 Zardab   Samira AGAYEVA 21 November 2014 The Baku Court of Appeal’s decision of 22 January 2015 and the Supreme Court’s decision of 23 February 2016   43327/16 04/07/2016 Gular Shahin gizi MEHDIZADE 13/04/1988 Absheron   Yalchin IMANOV 12 February 2016 The Baku Court of Appeal’s decision of 31 May 2016   62775/16 20/10/2016 Rovshana Vagif gizi RAHIMOVA 08/07/1984 Baku     25 February 2015 The Supreme Court’s decision of 7 April 2016 (the applicant was provided with a copy of the decision on 18 May 2016)     68722/16 19/11/2016 Amina Fevzi gizi HAJIYEVA 16/04/1955 Baku   Agil LAYIJOV 2016 The Baku Court of Appeal’s decision of 4 November 2016   76071/16 29/11/2016 Annagi Bahadur oglu HAJIBEYLI 03/09/1955 Baku   Khalid BAGIROV 2014 The Baku Court of Appeal’s decision of 11 July 2016   8051/17 29/12/2016 Izolda Heydar gizi AGAYEVA 04/09/1988 Baku   Yalchin IMANOV 21 March 2016 The Baku Court of Appeal’s decision of 1 July 2016     8702/17 19/01/2017 Aynura Tavakkul gizi HEYDAROVA 23/01/1981 Ganja   Fariz NAMAZLI 28 June 2016 The Baku Court of Appeal’s decision of 20 July 2016   12870/17 06/02/2017 Aytan Intigam gizi ALAKBAROVA 26/04/1980 Sumgayit   Fariz NAMAZLI 20 September 2015 The Baku Court of Appeal’s decision of 4 August 2016 and the Supreme Court’s decision of 28 December 2016   21246/17 07/03/2017 Azer Agagasim oglu GASIMLI 31/03/1975 Baku   Khalid BAGIROV 28 September 2016 The Baku Court of Appeal’s decision of 18 January 2017   37696/17 10/05/2017 Dilara Valeh gizi VALIYEVA 12/08/1958 Baku   Javad JAVADOV 2013   The Baku Court of Appeal’s decision of 15 March 2017