Last Updated on November 22, 2019 by LawEuro
Information Note on the Court’s case-law 232
August-September 2019
Akif Hasanov v. Azerbaijan – 7268/10
Judgment 19.9.2019 [Section V]
Article 35
Article 35-1
Six-month period
Failure to exercise due diligence in making enquiries as to status of proceedings where domestic law provided for automatic service of court decision: inadmissible
Facts – On 20 November 2007 the applicant was found guilty of minor hooliganism. His appeal against that judgment was dismissed by the Baku Court of Appeal on 12 December 2007. The applicant lodged his application to the Court on 28 January 2010. In 2014 the applicant informed the Court that, in the context of an unrelated matter, his case file had been seized from his lawyer’s office by State authorities.
Law – Article 35 § 1: The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to comply with the six-month rule when lodging his application. Where an applicant was entitled to be served automatically with a copy of the final domestic decision, the object and purpose of Article 35 § 1 were best served by counting the six-month period as running from the date of service of the copy of the written decision, irrespective of whether that decision had previously been delivered orally.
The applicant had lodged his appeal against the decision of the first-instance court on 26 November 2007. He had not been present at the hearing concerning his appeal and there was no evidence that he had been ex officio served with a copy of the decision, to which he was entitled, within the time frame set by the Code of Administrative Offences. The applicant maintained that it was only on 24 August 2009 that he had received a copy of that decision. That assertion had not been substantiated by a copy of any relevant complaint or request or any other evidence.
Given that the time-limit for deciding such appeals under the Code of Administrative Offences was three days and that the applicant had lodged his appeal on 26 November 2007, the applicant should have become aware of the alleged inactivity of the appellate court in respect of his appeal by the end of 2007. Even if the Baku Court of Appeal had failed to summon him and to ensure his participation in the hearing (as well as serving a copy of its decision), those facts could not have relieved the applicant of his own individual obligation to undertake elementary steps and seek information from the relevant authorities about the outcome of his appeal.
Moreover, following the lack of any response to his numerous other complaints, he should have become aware of the ineffectiveness of any investigation carried out by the domestic administrative or judicial authorities in the course of 2008. The alleged absence of any investigation, or inquiry, into such serious assertions for such a lengthy period of time should have prompted him to draw appropriate conclusions and to introduce the complaint before the Court. The applicant had not provided any information that would have justified either his inactivity in that respect or the fact that he had delayed applying directly to the Court. Accordingly, in the circumstances, the applicant ought to have concluded long before the introduction of his application – and certainly more than six months beforehand – that that investigation had not been effective.
Conclusion: inadmissible (out of time).
The Court also held that the respondent State had failed to comply with its obligations under Article 34 in relation to the seizure, from his lawyer’s office, of the applicant’s case file relating to his application to the Court.
(See also Worm v. Austria, 22714/93, 29 August 1997; and Ölmez v. Turkey (dec.), 39464/98, 1 February 2005)
Leave a Reply