CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 1 février 2007

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   76 1.2.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT RAMAZANOVA AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Ramazanova and Others v. Azerbaijan (application no. 44363/02).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicants a total of 4,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants, Nabat Ramazanova, Emin Zeynalov, Zarifa Ganbarova and Eldar Alizadeh, are Azerbaijani nationals who were born in 1947, 1949, 1952 and 1947 respectively and live in Baku (Azerbaijan).   On 4 April 2001 the applicants founded a public association named “Assistance to the Human Rights Protection of the Homeless and Vulnerable Residents of Baku”, a non-profit-making organisation aimed at providing aid to the homeless and protecting their interests. On 9 April 2001 the applicants filed a request for the association's state registration with the Ministry of Justice (“the Ministry”), with a view to acquiring the status of a legal entity.   On 18 May 2001 the Ministry returned the registration documents to the applicants without issuing a state registration certificate or an official refusal to register the association, noting that the association's charter did not comply with Article 6 of the Law On Non-Governmental Organisations , because it did not include a provision on the territorial area of the association's activity.   Between June 2001 and July 2002 the applicants submitted a further three registration requests, all of which were returned to the applicants with rectifications to be made to the association’s charter in order for it to comply with the requirements of domestic law. On an unspecified date after January 2003, having redrafted the charter again, the applicants’ submitted their fifth registration request.   In the meantime, the applicants applied four times to Yasamal District Court: firstly complaining that the Ministry “avoided” registering their organisation and asking the court to oblige the Ministry to register it; secondly claiming that the Ministry committed repeated procedural violations and unlawfully delayed the examination of their registration request; thirdly asking the court to provide legal interpretation as to whether the Ministry had a right under domestic law to repeatedly delay and decline registration, and to forward the matter concerning the Ministry's actions to the Constitutional Court; and, lastly, complaining about the Ministry’s refusal in January 2003 to register their association.   The first lawsuit was dismissed, the second declared inadmissible and the fourth was not admitted because the applicants’ appeals in earlier lawsuits were still pending before the higher courts. The Supreme Court upheld this decision. The applicants’ additional cassation appeal with the President of the Supreme Court was also rejected.   The applicants’ third lawsuit complaining about the domestic courts’ judgments was admitted for examination by the Constitutional Court and, on 11 May 2004, it was found that all the judgments and decisions of Yasamal District Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court were in breach of the judicial guarantees for protection of human rights and freedoms, as guaranteed by the Constitution. The Constitutional Court hence quashed all the domestic judgments and decisions relating to the applicants' case and remitted the case to the courts of general jurisdiction for a new examination.   Finally, on 18 February 2005 the Ministry, in response to the applicants’ fifth request, registered the association and issued it with a state registration certificate.   On the same day, Yasamal District Court dismissed the applicants’ complaint about the Ministry’s unlawful actions and claim for compensation. This judgment was later upheld by the Court of Appeal and by the Supreme Court.   A further lawsuit by the applicants seeking acknowledgment of a breach in domestic law by the Ministry, rejected at first instance, was accepted on appeal, the Ministry’s repeated delays in responding to the applicants’ registration requests having been found to be in breach of Article 9 of the Law on State Registration of Legal Entities. Three of the four applicants were awarded collectively 800 New Azerbaijani mantas (approximately 705 EUR) as compensation for non-pecuniary damage.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 22 November 2002.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani), Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norwegian), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicants alleged that the significant delays in the state registration of their public association amounted to a violation of their right to freedom of association, that the domestic courts were not independent and impartial and that the domestic remedies were not effective in lawsuits filed by public associations against the Ministry of Justice of Azerbaijan. They relied on Article 11, Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Decision of the Court   Article 11 The Court took note of the Government's argument that, under the domestic law applicable at that time, the return of foundation documents for rectification did not constitute a formal and final refusal to register the association or a total ban on its activities.   However, the Court observed that, given that the applicants’ rectified the deficiencies noted in the Ministry’s letters and re-submitted registration requests in a prompt manner, it could not be disputed that the registration procedure was substantially delayed (almost four years between the date of the first registration request and the final registration) by the Ministry of Justice's repeated failure to respond to the applicants' registration requests within the time-limits set by the domestic law on state registration.   Although such returning of documents may not be regarded as a formal and final refusal to register the association under domestic law, the Court considered that the repeated failure by the Ministry to issue a definitive decision did in fact amount to a refusal.   Moreover, the Court noted that domestic law effectively restricted the association's ability to function properly as a charity because, not having the status of a legal entity, it could not receive any “grants” or financial donations, one of the main sources of financing for non-governmental organisations in Azerbaijan.   As to whether the interference was justified, the Court found that there had been no basis in domestic law for such significant delays and did not accept as reasonable the Government’s excuse that the delays were caused by the Ministry’s alleged heavy workload. The Court considered that it was the duty of the Contracting State to organise its domestic state-registration system and take necessary measures to allow the relevant authorities to comply with the time ‑ limits imposed by its own law.   Furthermore, seeing as domestic law did not provide for automatic registration in the event that the Ministry failed to take any action in a timely manner nor did it specify a limit on the number of times the Ministry could return documents without issuing a final decision, the Court considered that domestic law did not afford the applicants sufficient legal protection against the arbitrary actions of the Ministry.   The Court concluded that the significant delays in the association’s state registration, in breach of statutory time-limits, and against which domestic law did not afford protection, resulted in the association’s prolonged inability to acquire the status of a legal entity and amounted to an interference by the authorities with the applicants' exercise of their right to freedom of association which was “not prescribed by law”. Accordingly, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 11.   Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 The Court rejected the applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 finding that they were manifestly ill-founded.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.