CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 septembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s246ADE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:8pt } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; 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 } Published on 13 October 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 45877/22 Aynur GANBAROVA against Azerbaijan and 24 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 24 September 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the alleged secret surveillance of the applicants through the use of Pegasus spyware [1] . The applicants are journalists, activists and human rights defenders. In 2021 investigative reports were published alleging that the governments of some countries, including several member States of the Council of Europe, had used Pegasus for targeted surveillance of their citizens. On 18 July 2021 the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (“the OCCRP”) published a list of persons in Azerbaijan, including many applicants, who might have been selected for such surveillance. Some applicants were also individually notified by the OCCRP that their phones might have been infected with Pegasus . On various dates the applicants complained to a number of State authorities, including the Prosecutor General’s Office and the State Security Service (“the SSS”), and asked them to investigate the circumstances of their alleged surveillance and to initiate criminal proceedings. The Prosecutor General’s Office forwarded the applicants’ complaints to the SSS. It appears from the case files that some applicants were invited by the SSS to its premises to give a statement and to present evidence in support of their complaints. On various dates the applicants lodged a complaint with the domestic courts under the judicial supervision procedure complaining about the domestic authorities’ failure to examine and act upon their complaints. In the proceedings concerning the complaints of the majority of the applicants, the courts rejected the complaints without examining them on the merits. They mainly held that the applicants had failed to present a decision refusing to commence criminal proceedings. However, in the proceedings concerning the complaints of several applicants, the domestic courts examined similar complaints on the merits and dismissed them as unsubstantiated. While doing so, they mainly held that the applicants had failed to provide any evidence proving that they had been subjected to secret surveillance. In some of those cases, relying on the letters from the SSS, the courts also noted that despite being invited by the latter to give a statement and present evidence, the applicants had failed to do so. Relying on Article 6 of the Convention, the applicants complain of a violation of their right to a fair hearing. Relying on Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention, the applicants complain that the respondent State has breached both its negative and positive obligations as a result of (i) the unlawful interference with their rights to respect for their private life and freedom of expression and (ii) the domestic authorities’ failure to examine their complaints in that regard. They further complain under Article 13 taken in conjunction with Articles 6, 8 and 10 of the Convention that they did not have any effective remedy in respect of their complaints. Relying on Article 17 taken in conjunction with Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention, the applicants also complain that the use of Pegasus spyware by the State was aimed at the destruction of their rights to respect for their private life and freedom of expression. Lastly, they complain under Article 18 taken in conjunction with Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention that their rights were restricted for purposes other than those proscribed in the Convention.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicants exhaust the domestic remedies as required by Article   35 § 1 of the Convention? 2.     Did the applicants comply with the four-month time-limit, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? 3.     Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil limb applicable to the proceedings in the present case? If so, did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? 4.     Has there been an interference by the State with the applicants’ right to respect for their private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, and if so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 §   2? Did the situation complained of give rise to the State’s positive obligations under Article   8 of the Convention and, if so, have they been complied with (see, mutatis mutandis , Khadija Ismayilova v. Azerbaijan , nos. 65286/13 and 57270/14, § 108-32, 10 January 2019)? 5.     Has there been an interference by the State with the applicants’ freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2? Did the situation give rise to the State’s positive obligations under Article   10 of the Convention, and if so, have they been complied with? 6.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Articles 8 and 10, as required by Article   13 of the Convention? 7.   Were the acts or omissions of the State in the present case aimed at the destruction of rights and freedoms or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention, within the meaning of Article   17? 8. Were the restrictions imposed by the State in the present case, purportedly pursuant to Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by those provisions, contrary to Article   18 of the Convention? 9.     Were all applicants summoned by the SSS in relation to their complaints? If so, did the applicants give a statement? Did the SSS examine the applicants’ complaints and issue any decision? The parties are invited to provide relevant documentary evidence in support of their submissions that has not been submitted with the application forms. The parties are also invited to inform the Court about any factual developments concerning the present applications.     APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 45877/22 Ganbarova v.   Azerbaijan 23/09/2022 Aynur Telman gizi GANBAROVA 1975 Baku Azerbaijani Padraig HUGHES 2. 45885/22 Abbasova v.   Azerbaijan 23/09/2022 Sevinj Vagif gizi ABBASOVA 1989 Baku Azerbaijani Padraig HUGHES 3. 46268/22 Mehdizade v.   Azerbaijan 23/09/2022 Gular Shahin gizi MEHDIZADE 1988 Fuzuli Azerbaijani Padraig HUGHES 4. 46277/22 Javadli v.   Azerbaijan 23/09/2022 Natig Sabir oglu JAVADLI 1971 Sumgayit Azerbaijani Padraig HUGHES 5. 15231/23 Namazov v.   Azerbaijan 04/04/2023 Shahvalad Abutalib oglu NAMAZOV 1969 Baku Azerbaijani Padraig HUGHES 6. 21555/23 Hashimli v.   Azerbaijan 30/05/2023 Parviz Kamran oglu HASHIMLI 1981 Kalbajar Azerbaijani Padraig HUGHES 7. 22257/23 Mammadova v.   Azerbaijan 02/06/2023 Aytan Amrah gizi MAMMADOVA 1981 Baku Azerbaijani Padraig HUGHES 8. 32771/23 Heydarova v.   Azerbaijan 25/08/2023 Fizza Simran gizi HEYDAROVA 1979 Hajigabul Azerbaijani Padraig HUGHES 9. 33713/23 Hajiyev v.   Azerbaijan 04/09/2023 Khalig Bahadir oglu HAJIYEV 1952 Baku Azerbaijani Padraig HUGHES 10. 33742/23 Hajiyev v.   Azerbaijan 31/08/2023 Rovshan Bahadir oglu HAJIYEV 1961 Baku Azerbaijani Padraig HUGHES 11. 33820/23 Shikhalizade v.   Azerbaijan 31/08/2023 Islam Abulaga oglu SHIKHALIZADE 1992 Baku Azerbaijani Padraig HUGHES 12. 33953/23 Kosayev v.   Azerbaijan 31/08/2023 Elnur Ragif oglu KOSAYEV 1980 Gazakh Azerbaijani   Padraig HUGHES 13. 38382/23 Hasanov v.   Azerbaijan 19/10/2023 Ulvi Fakhraddin oglu HASANOV 1987 Baku Azerbaijani   Padraig HUGHES 14. 38387/23 Movlamova v.   Azerbaijan 19/10/2023 Fatima Gachay gizi MOVLAMOVA 2000 Baku Azerbaijani   Padraig HUGHES 15. 38406/23 Novruzova v.   Azerbaijan 19/10/2023 Fargana Tofig gizi NOVRUZOVA 1984 Baku Azerbaijani   Padraig HUGHES 16. 41726/23 Rahimova v.   Azerbaijan 23/11/2023 Elmira Agasalim gizi RAHIMOVA 1997 Baku Azerbaijani   Saba ASHRAF 17. 7783/24 Agayeva v.   Azerbaijan 14/03/2024 Samira Rafail gizi AGAYEVA 1978 PASSAU Azerbaijani   Padraig HUGHES 18. 16772/24 Suleymanli v.   Azerbaijan 12/06/2024 Bashir Suleyman oglu SULEYMANLI 1980 Yevlakh Azerbaijani   Padraig HUGHES 19. 16779/24 Kazimli v.   Azerbaijan 12/06/2024 Samir Sabir oglu KAZIMLI 1982 Baku Azerbaijani   Padraig HUGHES 20. 16802/24 Jabrayilzade v.   Azerbaijan 12/06/2024 Ramin Natig oglu JABRAYILZADE 1987 Lankaran Azerbaijani       Padraig HUGHES 21. 17621/24 Karimov v.   Azerbaijan 20/06/2024 Aziz Elkhan oglu KARIMOV 1987 Baku Azerbaijani   Padraig HUGHES 22. 19765/24 Gahraman v.   Azerbaijan 12/07/2024 Elgiz Jamal oglu GAHRAMAN 1986 Baku Azerbaijani Padraig HUGHES 23. 19809/24 Ibrahimov v.   Azerbaijan 12/07/2024 Turan Mammad oglu IBRAHIMOV 1992 Yevlakh Azerbaijani Padraig HUGHES 24. 35997/24 Alakbarova v.   Azerbaijan 02/12/2024 Aytan Intigam gizi ALAKBAROVA 1980 Sumgayit Azerbaijani Saba ASHRAF 25. 1434/25 Abiyeva v.   Azerbaijan 09/01/2025 Zumrud Israfil gizi ABIYEVA 1971 Baku Azerbaijani Padraig HUGHES   [1] This spyware can secretly turn a mobile phone or a personal computer into a 24-hour surveillance device, enabling the operator to gain complete access to all information on the personal device.