SALAYEV A OSTATNÍ proti Ázerbajdžánu

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF SALAYEV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

(Applications nos. 54198/22 and 3 others –

see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

22 January 2026

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Salayev and Others v. Azerbaijan,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Diana Kovatcheva, President,
Canòlic Mingorance Cairat,
Vasilka Sancin, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 18 December 2025,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in applications against Azerbaijan lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.

2. The Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.

THE FACTS

3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

4. The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention of the unfair trial in administrative-offence proceedings.

THE LAW

1. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

2. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 of the Convention

6. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicants complained that they had not had a fair hearing, since the domestic court decisions had lacked adequate reasoning. In application no. 25394/23, the applicant also complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention that his trial had been held in camera and that he had not been provided with a lawyer of his own choosing.

7. In the leading cases of Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan (no. 60259/11, 15 October 2015); Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan (nos. 67360/11 and 2 others, 11 February 2016); and Hasanov and Majidli v. Azerbaijan, (nos. 9626/14 and 9717/14, 7 October 2021), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case (see also Pichugin v. Russia, no. 38623/03, 23 October 2012).

8. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the administrative-offence proceedings against the applicants, considered as a whole, were not in conformity with the guarantees of a fair hearing under Article 6 of the Convention, in particular due to insufficient or manifestly unreasonable justification of court decisions. In application no. 25394/23, the domestic courts’ failure to examine the applicant’s complaint about the trial being held in camera, as well as the lack of the applicant’s access to a lawyer of his own choosing constituted other important factors undermining the fairness of the proceedings taken as a whole.

9. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose breaches of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention (for a similar approach see, among other authorities, Huseynli and Others, cited above § 135).

3. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

10. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law (see, in particular, Yegorov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 77208/16 and 4 others, 28 May 2019; Kuratov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 24377/15 and 2 others, 22 October 2019; Shaliyev v. Azerbaijan [Committee], no. 80814/17, 9 March 2023; Safarov and Others v. Azerbaijan [Committee], nos. 1476/18 and 19 others, 23 March 2023; and Mammadov and Others v. Azerbaijan [Committee], nos. 23689/14 and 7 others, 21 September 2023), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares the complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention concerning the unfair trial in administrative-offence proceedings admissible;
3. Holds that these complaints disclose breaches of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention concerning the unfairness of the trial in administrative offence proceedings taken as a whole (for specific findings see table below);
4. Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

5. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 January 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

{signature_p_1} {signature_p_2}

Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Kovatcheva

Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 of the Convention

(unfair trial in administrative offence proceedings)

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.