SHALIYEV proti Ázerbajdžánu

FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 80814/17
Rahim SHALIYEV

against Azerbaijan

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 9 March 2023 as a Committee composed of:

Alena Poláčková, President,
Gilberto Felici,
Raffaele Sabato, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 June 2017,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table.

The applicant was represented by Mr Y. Imanov, a lawyer based in Azerbaijan.

The applicant’s complaints under Article 6 of the Convention concerning the unfair trial in administrative-offence proceedings were communicated to the Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”).

THE LAW

After unsuccessful friendly-settlement negotiations, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

The Government acknowledged the unfair trial in administrative offence proceedings. They offered to pay the applicant the amounts detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amounts would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay these amounts within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.

The applicant was sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declaration several weeks before the date of this decision. In reply, the applicant submitted that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration. In particular, he indicated that the amount of compensation provided for in the Government’s unilateral declaration was low.

The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it to strike a case out of its list if:

“... for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.

Thus, it may strike out applications under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued (see, in particular, the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75‑77, ECHR 2003-VI).

The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the unfair trial in administrative-offence proceedings (see, for example, 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).

Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed - which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases (see Yegorov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 32795/16 and 7 others, 12 October 2017, and Kuratov and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 24377/15 and 2 others, 22 October 2019) - the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)). As regards the applicant’s objection to the terms of the unilateral declaration, the Court has, in the absence of further details, no reasons to consider that the compensation offered by the Government constitutes inadequate or otherwise unreasonable redress for the violation of his Convention rights (see Ryabkin and Volokitin v. Russia (dec.), nos. 52166/08 and 8526/09, §§ 49‑50, 28 June 2016, and Igranov and Others v. Russia, nos. 42399/13 and 8 others, § 24, 20 March 2018, and, for a similar approach, Antovski and Others v. North Macedonia (dec.) [Committee], no. 68160/17, 8 December 2022).

In the light of the above considerations, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).

Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (see Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.

Done in English and notified in writing on 30 March 2023.

Viktoriya Maradudina Alena Poláčková
Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 6 of the Convention

(unfair trial in administrative-offence proceedings)

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

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