CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 18 octobre 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   697 18.10.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT NASIBOVA v. AZERBAIJAN   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Nasibova v. Azerbaijan (application no. 4307/04).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 11 (freedom of association) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 1,000   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 applicant, Sheyda Khalil qizi Nasibova, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1973 and lives in Baku. She was a co-founder and director of “The Media Centre” ( “Jurnalist Araşdırmaları Mərkəzi” İctimai Birliyi ), a non-governmental organisation (NGO) set up on 15 July 2001 to promote professional journalism and media freedom.   On 12 September 2001 the organisation’s founders filed a request for state registration with the Ministry of Justice (the Ministry).   According to the Azerbaijani Government, in a letter dated 11 October 2001, a Ministry official informed the applicant that the organisation’s charter contained a number of deficiencies and asked the founders to revise the charter accordingly. The applicant maintained that the founders did not receive such a letter.   On 12 September 2002 the organisation’s founders re-submitted their registration request together with an amended version of the association’s charter.   In January 2003 the applicant filed a lawsuit against the Ministry with Yasamal District Court, complaining of the Ministry’s failure to take any action within the statutory ten-day time-limit. At the relevant time, Article 9 of the Law on State Registration of Legal Entities of 6 February 1996 set a ten-day limit for the Ministry to issue a decision on the state registration of a legal entity. Where the legal entity’s foundation documents contained rectifiable deficiencies, the Ministry could return the documents to the founders within the same ten-day limit with instructions for their rectification. There was a statutory five-day time-limit for the official response to the resubmission of a revised registration request.   On 27 January 2003 the Ministry returned the registration documents to the applicant without taking a decision on registration. In its covering letter, the Ministry noted that the association’s charter did not comply with the law on NGOs.   On 10 February 2003 Yasamal District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim, finding that, as the association’s charter failed to meet the requirements of the law on NGOs, the Ministry’s refusal to register the association had been lawful. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 19 December 2003.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Nina Vajić (Croatian), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani), Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norwegian), Giorgio Malinverni (Swiss), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying, in particular, on Article 11 and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complained about substantial delays in the registration of “The Media Centre” and that the relevant domestic proceedings had been unfair.   Decision of the Court   Article 11   The Court declared admissible the part of the case relating to events that took place after 15 April 2002, the date the European Convention on Human Rights entered into force in Azerbaijan.   The Court reiterated that the failure by the Ministry of Justice to reply, within the statutory time-limits, to requests for state registration of a public association amounted to a de facto refusal to register the association. Lacking the status of a legal entity, the association’s legal capacity was not identical to that of state-registered NGOs. The significant delays in the registration procedure, if attributable to the Ministry of Justice, amounted to an interference with the right to freedom of association of the applicant and other founders of The Media Centre.   The Court considered that the Government had failed to present reliable evidence to support their contention that the Ministry had replied to the founders’ first registration request on 11 October 2001. The Court concluded that the first formal response to the registration request of 12 September 2001 was issued only on 27 January 2003, a delay of more than one year and four months. More than nine months of that delay fell within the period after 15 April 2002. The Court therefore concluded that the Ministry breached the statutory ten-day time-limit.   Following the founders’ second registration request of 12 September 2002, it took the Ministry more than four months to issue a formal reply, which also breached the ten-day time-limit.   The Court also reiterated that the Law of 6 February 1996 did not afford sufficient protection against delays in the state registration procedure caused by the Ministry’s failure to respond to registration requests within the statutory time-limits.   Having found that the Ministry of Justice breached the statutory time-limit for issuing the formal response to the state registration requests and that domestic law did not afford sufficient protection against such delays, the Court concluded that the interference was not “prescribed by law”, in violation of Article 11.   Articles 6 § 1 and 13   The Court did not consider it necessary to examine separately the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 that the domestic courts had not taken into consideration one of her complaints or all the evidence.   ***   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) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91)   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 Convention, 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.