CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 22 octobre 2015

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 189 October 2015 Annagi Hajibeyli v. Azerbaijan - 2204/11 Judgment 22.10.2015 [Section I] Article 34 Hinder the exercise of the right of petition Seizure, during search of his lawyer’s office on unrelated matter, of applicant’s case file concerning his application to the Court: failure to comply with Article * Facts – In his application to the European Court, the applicant complained of a violation of Article   3 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention on the grounds that his request for registration as a candidate in parliamentary elections in 2010 had been refused arbitrarily. While the application was still pending, the applicant’s lawyer was arrested on charges of tax evasion and abuse of power. During a search of the lawyer’s office, a number of documents were seized, including the file concerning the applicant’s case before the European Court. Law – Article 34: The principles of effective exercise of the right of individual petition and of adversarial process required that in proceedings before the Court each party should enjoy unhindered access to copies of all the material relating to the case pending before it. After the seizure of the case file, neither he nor his lawyer had had access to the materials relating to the applicant’s application for a period of 76   days. Removal from the applicant’s possession of his copy of the case file by the state authorities, for whatever reason, constituted an interference with the integrity of the Court proceedings and required serious justification and compensatory measures if it was to be considered acceptable. In the present case, the domestic authorities were or should have been aware that the applicant’s lawyer was representing numerous clients before the Court. However, no reservation was put in place with regard to privileged client documents kept in his office. Moreover, although the search warrant specified that any material seized had to be related only to the charges brought against the lawyer, the prosecution authorities overstepped its scope by seizing the applicant’s case file, which was not so related, without justification. The Court stressed that a failure by the respondent Government to comply with their procedural obligation under Article   34 of the Convention did not necessarily require that the alleged interference should have actually restricted, or had any appreciable impact on, the exercise of the right of individual petition. The State’s procedural obligation had to be enforced irrespective of the eventual outcome of the proceedings and in such a manner as to avoid any actual or potential chilling effect on the applicants or their representatives. It followed that the Government’s argument that no activity relating to the applicant’s case had actually taken place during the period when his case file was in the authorities’ possession was irrelevant. At the time of the seizure the applicant could not foresee for how long his case file would remain in the authorities’ possession and whether any correspondence would take place during that period. The very fact that the applicant and his lawyer were deprived of access to their copy of the case file for a lengthy period of time, without justification or any compensatory measures, constituted in itself undue interference with the integrity of the proceedings and a serious hindrance to the effective exercise of the applicant’s right of individual petition. Conclusion : failure to comply with Article   34 (unanimously). The Court also found, unanimously, a violation of Article   3 of Protocol No.   1 as the applicant had not been afforded sufficient safeguards to prevent an arbitrary decision to refuse his registration as a candidate. Article 41: EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (See also Janowiec and Others v. Russia [GC], 55508/07 and 29520/09, 21   October 2013, Information Note   167 ; Tahirov v.   Azerbaijan , 31953/11, 11   June 2015, Information Note   186 )   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes