ABDULLAYEVA A SARIJANOVA proti Ázerbajdžánu

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF ABDULLAYEVA AND SARIJANOVA v. AZERBAIJAN

(Applications nos. 39092/23 and 40261/23)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

2 June 2026

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

In the case of Abdullayeva and Sarijanova v. Azerbaijan,

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

Canòlic Mingorance Cairat, President,
Lətif Hüseynov,
Vasilka Sancin, judges,
and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the applications (nos. 39092/23 and 40261/23) against the Republic of Azerbaijan lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the applicants listed in the appended table (“the applicants”), represented by Mr J. Javadov, a lawyer based in Azerbaijan, on the various dates indicated in the appended table;

the decision to give notice of the applications to the Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Əsgərov;

the applicants’ observations;

Having deliberated in private on 12 May 2026,

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

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1. The applications concern travel bans imposed on the applicants by the investigating authorities.

2. On different dates in 2023 the applicants learned that restrictions on their right to leave Azerbaijan had been imposed and that they were no longer free to leave the country.

3. The restrictions had been imposed by the investigating authorities, in the absence of any judicial decision, within the framework of criminal proceedings in which the applicants had only been questioned as witnesses. The applicants had not been convicted, accused or suspects in those criminal proceedings.

4. The applicants challenged the lawfulness of the restrictions imposed on them by lodging a complaint with the ordinary courts under the procedure concerning the review of the lawfulness of procedural actions or decisions by investigating authorities.

5. In application no. 39092/23, by a final decision of 19 October 2023, the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s complaint on the grounds that the criminal proceedings within the framework of which the travel ban had been imposed on the applicant were still ongoing and that she might also be charged with a criminal offence within those criminal proceedings.

6. In application no. 40261/23, by a final decision of the Baku Court of Appeal dated 30 October 2023, the domestic courts refused to examine the applicant’s complaints on the merits, holding that she had failed to submit a copy of the decision imposing the travel ban on her.

7. The applicants complained under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention and Article 13 of the Convention that their right to leave Azerbaijan had been violated by the travel ban imposed on them by the domestic authorities and that they had had no effective remedy at the domestic level in respect of that travel ban.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

1. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

8. 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 2 OF PROTOCOL No. 4 TO THE CONVENTION

9. The Court refers to the general principles established in its case-law and set out in Mursaliyev and Others v. Azerbaijan (nos. 66650/13 and 10 others, 13 December 2018), which are also pertinent to the present case.

10. Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court notes that in Mursaliyev and Others (ibid., §§ 29-36), after examining an identical complaint based on similar facts, it found that the imposition of a travel ban on the applicants, who had only been witnesses in criminal proceedings, by the investigating authorities in the absence of any judicial decision had not been “in accordance with the law”. The Court considers that the analysis and the finding it made in Mursaliyev and Others also apply to the present case and sees no reason to deviate from that finding.

11. Accordingly, this complaint is admissible and reveals a violation of the applicants’ right to leave their country, as guaranteed by Article 2 of Protocol No. 4, on account of the travel ban imposed on them by the prosecuting authorities.

3. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION

12. The Court refers to the general principles established in its case-law and set out in Mursaliyev and Others (cited above, §§ 42-43), which are also pertinent to the present case.

13. The Court observes that the domestic courts held that the restriction on one of the applicant’s right to leave the country had been justified (see paragraph 5 above) and refused to examine the other applicant’s complaints on the merits (see paragraph 6 above), without referring to any legal grounds for the restriction or addressing its proportionality. In that connection, the Court considers it necessary to reiterate that such a limited scope of review by the domestic courts, failing to establish the legal basis of the restriction in question and to address the proportionality of the measure taking into account its duration and other particular circumstances of each case, cannot satisfy the requirements of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (see Mursaliyev and Others, cited above, § 46).

14. Having regard to the foregoing, the Court considers that the applicants did not have an effective remedy under Azerbaijani law affording them the opportunity to raise their complaints of Convention violations. Accordingly, this complaint is likewise admissible and reveals a violation of Article 13 taken together with Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention.

APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

15. Each of the applicants claimed 6,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non‑pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 in respect of costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings before the domestic courts and the Court.

16. The Government submitted that the applicants’ claims were unsubstantiated and excessive.

17. Ruling on an equitable basis, the Court awards each of the applicants EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable.

18. Having regard to the documents in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award each of the applicants EUR 500 in respect of costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings before the domestic courts and the Court, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, to be paid directly to the applicants’ representative.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares the applications admissible;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;
5. Holds
   1. that the respondent State is to pay each of the applicants, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
      1. EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
      2. EUR 500 (five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses, to be paid directly to the applicants’ representative’s bank account;
   2. 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;
6. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.

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

Olga Chernishova Canòlic Mingorance Cairat
Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of cases: