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 } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s798A1C99 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:center } .sC5439D39 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .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. 30573/22 Javad JAVADOV and Others against Azerbaijan and 7 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, lawyers, 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 or Amnesty Tech that their phones might have been infected with Pegasus . On various dates the applicants, except the applicant in application no.   40571/23, 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 provide evidence in support of their complaints. On various dates the applicants, except the applicant in application no.   40571/23, 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. The domestic courts’ final decisions can be grouped as follows: (a) in the proceedings concerning the complaints of the first, third, fifth, sixth and ninth applicants in application no. 2273/23 and the first applicant in application no. 20096/24, the domestic courts found that the applicants had missed the time-limit for submitting their appeals to the appellate court. In the proceedings concerning the complaint of the first applicant in application no. 20096/24, the domestic courts also dismissed the applicant’s request for restoration of the time-limit finding that he had not advanced any good reasons for his failure to comply with the time-limit; (b) in the proceedings concerning the complaints of the applicants in applications nos. 30573/22 and 32115/22, the second, fourth, seventh and eighth applicants in application no. 2273/23, the applicant in application no.   25614/23, the third and fourth applicants in application no. 20096/24 and the applicant in application no. 393/25, the domestic courts rejected the complaints without examining them on the merits; (c) in the proceedings concerning the complaints of the second and fifth applicants in application no. 20096/24 and the applicant in application no.   23301/24, the domestic courts examined the complaints on the merits and dismissed them as unsubstantiated. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, all applicants complain that there was an unlawful interference with their right to respect for their private life and that the domestic authorities failed to examine their complaints in that regard. The applicants in applications nos. 30573/22 and 32115/22, and the fifth applicant in application no. 20096/24 complain under Article 6 of the Convention of a breach of their right to a fair hearing. The fifth, sixth and eighth applicants in application no. 2273/23, the third fourth and fifth applicants in application no. 20096/24 and the applicants in applications nos. 40571/23 and 23301/24 complain under Article 10 of the Convention about a breach of their right to freedom of expression. The applicants further complain under Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 8 only or Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention that they did not have an effective remedy in respect of their complaints. Relying on Article 17 taken in conjunction with Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention, the fifth applicant in application no. 20096/24 complains that the use of Pegasus spyware by the State was aimed at the destruction of his rights to respect for his private life and freedom of expression. The applicants in applications nos. 30573/22, 32115/22, 2273/23, 25614/23, 20096/24, 23301/24 and 393/25 complain under Article 18 taken in conjunction with Article 8 only or Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention that their rights were restricted for purposes other than those proscribed in the Convention.   COMMON 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 six-month or four-month time-limit, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Orhan v.   Türkiye (dec.), no. 38358/22, §   44, 6   December 2022)? 3. 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 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)? 4.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaint under Article 8 of the Convention, as required by Article   13 of the Convention? 5.     Were all applicants, except the applicant in application no. 40571/23 who did not lodge a complaint, 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 presented with the application forms. The parties are also invited to inform the Court about any factual developments concerning the present applications. CASE-SPECIFIC QUESTIONS Applications nos. 30573/22, 32115/22 and 20096/24 (the fifth applicant) 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? Applications nos. 2273/23 (the fifth, sixth and eighth applicants), 20096/24 (the third, fourth and fifth applicants), 40571/23 and 23301/24 1.     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? 2.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaint under Article 10 of the Convention, as required by Article   13 of the Convention? Application no. 20096/24 (the fifth applicant) 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? Applications nos. 30573/22, 32115/22, 2273/23, 25614/23, 20096/24, 23301/24 and 393/25 Were the restrictions imposed by the State in the present case, purportedly pursuant to Articles 8 (applicants in all seven applications) and 10 (the fifth, sixth and eighth applicants in application no. 2273/23, the third, fourth and fifth applicants in application no. 20096/24, and the applicant in application no. 23301/24) of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by those provisions, contrary to Article 18 of the Convention? Application no. 2273/23 (the fourth applicant) The parties are invited to provide a copy of the Baku Court of Appeal’s decision of 15 September 2022.     APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality   Represented by 1. 30573/22 Javadov and Others v.   Azerbaijan 15/06/2022 1) Javad Yusif oglu JAVADOV 1976 Baku Azerbaijani 2) Arzu Ismayil gizi ABDULLAYEVA 1954 Baku Azerbaijani 3) Zafar Aliaga oglu AHMADOV 1957 Salyan Azerbaijani 4) Zaur Jahid oglu AKBAROV 1984 Baku Azerbaijani 5) Adil Abulfat oglu GEYBULLA 1962 Baku Azerbaijani 6) Ziya Rovshan oglu GULIYEV 1982 Baku Azerbaijani 7) Bakhtiyar Ilyas oglu HAJIYEV 1982 Baku Azerbaijani 8) Nihad Gazanfar oglu HUSEYNOV 1991 Baku Azerbaijani 9) Shahla Rafig gizi ISMAYIL 1976 Baku Azerbaijani 10) Togrul Shahin oglu ISMAYILOV 1989 Baku Azerbaijani 11) Bakir Rustam oglu KHALILOV 1962 Baku Azerbaijani 12) Agil Tajir oglu LAYIJ 1983 Baku Azerbaijani 13) Tazakhan Maharram oglu MIRALAMLI 1970 Baku Azerbaijani 14) Ilkin Bakir oglu RUSTAMZADE 1992 Baku Azerbaijani 15) Rufat Eldar oglu SAFAROV 1981 Baku Azerbaijani   Javad JAVADOV 2. 32115/22 Sadigov v.   Azerbaijan 01/06/2022 Elchin Ali oglu SADIGOV 1981 Baku Azerbaijani   Zibeyda SADIGOVA 3. 2273/23 Gurbanov and Others v.   Azerbaijan 23/11/2022 1) Akif Yagub oglu GURBANOV 1981 Baku Azerbaijani 2) Turgut Isa oglu GAMBAR 1989 Baku Azerbaijani 3) Abulfaz Adam oglu GURBANLI 1982 Imishli Azerbaijani 4) Shahla Knyaz gizi HUMBATOVA 1979 Baku Azerbaijani 5) Mehman Rafig oglu HUSEYNOV 1989 Baku Azerbaijani 6) Elkin Mehman oglu KHALILOV 1992 Agdam Azerbaijani 7) Anar Asaf oglu MAMMADLI 1978 Baku Azerbaijani 8) Jasur Mazahir oglu MAMMADOV 1976 Baku Azerbaijani 9) Araz Alakbar oglu ZEYNIYEV 1979 Nakhchivan Azerbaijani   Jessica GAVRON 4. 25614/23 Namazli v.   Azerbaijan 22/06/2023 Fariz Mubariz oglu NAMAZLI 1982 Sumgayit Azerbaijani   Sayyad YUSIFLI 5. 40571/23 Bedevyan v.   Azerbaijan 08/11/2023 Astghik BEDEVYAN 1981 Yerevan Armenian   Padraig HUGHES 6. 20096/24 Mustafayev and Others v.   Azerbaijan 12/07/2024 1) Asabali Gurban oglu MUSTAFAYEV 1951 Sumgayit Azerbaijani 2) Intigam Kamil oglu ALIYEV 1962 Absheron Azerbaijani 3) Mehman Yadulla oglu ALIYEV 1957 Baku Azerbaijani 4) Rasul Agahasan oglu JAFAROV 1984 Baku Azerbaijani 5) Fakhraddin Mahaddin oglu MEHDIYEV 1952 Baku Azerbaijani   Toby COLLIS 7. 23301/24 Zayidov v.   Azerbaijan 08/08/2024 Ganimat Salim oglu ZAYIDOV 1963 Lingolsheim Azerbaijani   Toby COLLIS 8. 393/25 Fattah v.   Azerbaijan 17/12/2024 Elman Volodiya oglu FATTAH 1974 Prague Azerbaijani   Toby COLLIS   [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.