CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 13 juillet 2023

.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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom: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 } Legal summary July 2023 Emin Huseynov v. Azerbaijan (No. 2) - 1/16 Judgment 13.7.2023 [Section I] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for private life Arbitrary termination of the applicant’s Azerbaijani citizenship, resulting in him becoming a stateless person: violation Facts – The applicant at the time was an independent journalist and the chairman of a human rights NGO specialising in the protection of journalists’ rights (IRFS). In July 2014 the authorities opened a criminal investigation into the activities of the IRFS. In August 2014 the applicant went into hiding and eventually found refuge in the Embassy of the Swiss Confederation in Baku. He was charged with illegal entrepreneurship, large-scale tax evasion and abuse of power and his arrest was ordered. On 4   June 2015, while at the embassy, the applicant submitted an application form to the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan, stating that he wished to renounce his Azerbaijani citizenship. He indicated, inter alia , that he had no other nationality. On 9   June 2015 the Swiss authorities paid the applicant’s tax debt in Azerbaijan. On the same day the order for the applicant’s arrest was revoked, and on 11 June 2015 the decision declaring him a wanted person was quashed. On 12   June 2015 the applicant left Azerbaijan on a plane with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Swiss Confederation. He was later informed by the authorities that his citizenship of the Republic of Azerbaijan had been terminated by order of the President. No information was provided about the outcome of the criminal proceedings against him. Law – Article   8: (1) Admissibility – Orders of the President were not “normative legal acts” and could not therefore be challenged before the Constitutional Court. Neither could they be challenged in administrative court proceedings, nor had it been shown by the Government that they could be before the courts of general jurisdiction. Further, the applicant had never been provided with a copy of the order. Conclusion : Government’s preliminary objection dismissed (exhaustion of domestic remedies). (2) Merits – In determining whether the termination of the applicant’s citizenship had constituted an interference with his right to private life, the Court noted the various methodological approaches previously used in cases relating to citizenship and followed the consequence-based approach. It examined what the consequences of the impugned measure had been for the applicant and then whether the measure in question had been arbitrary. As a result of the termination of his citizenship, the applicant had become a stateless person without any valid identity document, creating general uncertainty as regards his legal status and directly affecting his social identity. Thus, the impugned measure had amounted to an interference with his “private life”. The Government had argued that the applicant himself had asked to renounce his Azerbaijani citizenship whereas the applicant had maintained that he had been forced to do so. The Court first observed that under domestic law a citizen of the Republic of Azerbaijan might in no case be deprived of citizenship of the Republic of Azerbaijan. It then expressed doubts on the voluntary nature of the applicant’s request, in the light of the sequence of the events that had preceded his departure from Azerbaijan. In particular, the revocation of the arrest order against him and the quashing of the decision declaring him a wanted person had taken place a few days after he had submitted the request to renounce his citizenship, his tax debt had been paid by the Swiss authorities and he had departed from the country. However, there was no need in the circumstances of the case to establish whether the renunciation of his citizenship had been forced or voluntary since, in any event, the termination of the applicant’s citizenship had been arbitrary. In this connection the Court first observed that under the Law on Citizenship the citizenship of a person who was charged as an accused in a criminal case might not be renounced. There was no information in the case file as to outcome of the criminal proceedings against the applicant or his legal status in those proceedings on the date of the termination of his citizenship. In any event, the domestic authorities had given no heed to the fact that the termination of his citizenship would render him a stateless person. In this respect, they had disregarded the requirements of the 1961 United Nations Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness which was an integral part of the legal order of Azerbaijan and under which renunciation should not lead to statelessness. Lastly, the impugned measure had not been accompanied by the necessary procedural safeguards since the applicant had had no opportunity to contest the President’s order before the domestic courts. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). The Court also held, unanimously, that the respondent State had not failed to comply with its obligations under Articles   34 (hinder the exercise of the right of application) and 38 (obligation to furnish all necessary facilities). Article   41: EUR 4,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage; claim for pecuniary damage dismissed. (See also Ramadan v.   Malta , 76136/12, 21   June 2016, Legal Summary ; Usmanov v.   Russia , 43936/18, 22   December 2020, Legal Summary ; Hashemi and Others v.   Azerbaijan , 1480/16 et al. 13   January 2022)   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. To access legal summaries in English or French click here . For non-official translations into other languages click here .