CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 octobre 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt }   Published on 25 October 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 83241/17 AZERBAIJAN POPULAR FRONT PARTY against Azerbaijan lodged on 2 December 2017 communicated on 4 October 2021   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The present application, lodged by the Azerbaijan Popular Front Party ( AXCP ), which is an opposition political party, concerns a refusal by the Ministry of Justice to register changes made in the registered founding documents of the party. In February 2015 its chairman, Mr   Kerimli, decided to dismiss the party’s vice-chairman, Mr Nurullayev, from his position. In the same month Mr Nurullayev made a public statement revoking his membership in the party. In the period from March to July 2015 the party expelled some of its members and some other members revoked their membership. In September 2015 the party’s congress ( Qurultay ), inter alia , re-elected Mr Kerimli as its chairman vested with the power to represent the party, and approved members forming one of its main governing bodies. The applicant party applied to the Ministry of Justice for registration of those changes. The Ministry returned the registration documents without taking any action, noting that it had received another request, according to which in October 2015 another congress of the same party (which called itself a “congress of confidence” ( Etimad Qurultayı )) had elected Mr Nurullayev as the party’s chairman and formed its governing bodies. The applicant party lodged a court claim against the Ministry of Justice arguing, inter alia , that the “congress of confidence” had been organised by persons, including Mr Nurullayev, whose membership in the party had been cancelled or revoked before July 2015, and asking the courts to order the Ministry of Justice to register the changes adopted by the legitimate congress convened in September 2015. The courts dismissed the claim on the grounds that the Ministry of Justice did not have an obligation to establish which of the two congresses had been legitimate, and that it was not possible for the courts themselves to establish the alleged lack of legitimacy of the “congress of confidence” because the applicant party had not submitted any relevant documents concerning that particular event. The applicant party complains that, by failing to register the above-mentioned changes adopted by its legitimate party congress, the domestic authorities breached its right to freedom of association under Article 11 of the Convention. The applicant party also complains under 13 taken in conjunction with Article 11 of the Convention that its right to an effective remedy was breached because the domestic courts failed to address the party’s serious and pertinent arguments and assess the evidence submitted by it. Lastly, the applicant party complains under Article 18 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 11 that the refusal by the Ministry of Justice to register the changes made in its registered founding documents was part of a harassment policy against it. The applicant party noted, in particular, that its activists had been systematically arrested and convicted for political reasons and that its leader Mr Kerimli had been unlawfully prevented from leaving the country.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant party’s freedom of association within the meaning of Article   11 §   1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   11 § 2? 2.     Did the applicant party have at its disposal an effective domestic remedy for its complaint under Article 11, as required by Article   13 of the Convention? 3.     Were the restrictions imposed by the State in the present case, purportedly pursuant to Article 11 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by that provision, contrary to Article   18 of the Convention?