Last Updated on February 16, 2023 by LawEuro
The present applications concern the restrictions imposed on the bank accounts of the applicants, who are civil society activists and non‑governmental organisations.
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF IMRANOVA AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
(Applications nos. 59462/14 and 17 others)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
16 February 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Imranova and others v. Azerbaijan,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Krzysztof Wojtyczek, President,
Lətif Hüseynov,
Erik Wennerström, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the applications 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”), on the dates and with the representatives indicated therein;
the decision to give notice of the applicants’ complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning the restrictions imposed on their bank accounts by the domestic authorities, together with various other complaints raised by some of the applicants under Articles 6, 10, 11, 13 and 18 of the Convention in connection with the domestic proceedings concerning the above-mentioned restrictions, to the Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”) represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Əsgərov, and to declare the remainder of some of the applications inadmissible;
the decisions of the President of the Section to give Mr K. Bagirov and Mr Y. Imanov leave to represent some of the applicants (see the appended table) in the proceedings before the Court (Rule 36 § 4 (a) in fine of the Rules of Court);
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 24 January 2023,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The present applications concern the restrictions imposed on the bank accounts of the applicants, who are civil society activists and non‑governmental organisations.
2. On different dates between May 2014 and April 2015, following a request submitted by the prosecuting authorities and in the context of criminal case no. 142006023, the relevant domestic courts, relying on Article 248 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCrP”), issued attachment orders in respect of the applicants’ bank accounts, deciding to freeze their bank accounts for the duration of the criminal investigation (cinayət təqibinin davam etdiyi müddət ərzində). The background information relating to the opening of criminal case no. 142006023 is described in detail in Democracy and Human Rights Resource Centre and Mustafayev v. Azerbaijan (nos. 74288/14 and 64568/16, §§ 6-8, 14 October 2021).
3. It appears from the documents in the case file that in all the cases the domestic courts issued the relevant decisions in the absence of the applicants or their representatives and that the applicants learned about those restrictions on different dates from other sources or from their banks when they tried to carry out operations using their accounts. Once the applicants learned about the attachment measure, they asked the relevant first-instance courts for copies of the relevant orders, upon receipt of which they lodged complaints against those orders before the appellate courts.
4. In their appeals, the applicants mainly submitted that an attachment order could not have been made in respect of their bank accounts within the meaning of Article 248 of the CCrP since they had not been charged with any crime. They also noted that an attachment order could be made within the meaning of Article 248.1 of the CCrP only for the purposes of ensuring the payment of a civil claim or the confiscation of property when provided for by criminal law. However, criminal case no. 142006023 had been opened under Articles 308.1 and 313 of the Criminal Code, which did not provide for the confiscation of property as a sanction. Furthermore, they pointed out that there was no evidence that the money that they had received from donors was being used to commit a criminal offence, was the object of a criminal offence or constituted the proceeds of crime and that, in any event, the attachment orders were disproportionate because they did not only concern the impugned amount that the applicants had received from some donors, but completely froze their bank accounts, paralysing their professional activities.
5. On various dates (see the appended table), having examined the applicants’ appeals on the merits, except in applications nos. 74275/14, 74333/14 and 74559/14, the appellate courts dismissed the appeals, finding the attachment orders justified. In respect of applications nos. 74275/14, 74333/14 and 74559/14, on various dates (see the appended table) the appellate courts dismissed the applicants’ appeals against the first-instance courts’ decisions rejecting their requests for restoration of the time-limits for lodging an appeal in their cases. The appellate courts reasoned that the applicants had failed to submit any evidence showing that there had been a valid reason for not meeting the three‑day time-limit.
6. No information is available in the case file as regards the outcome of criminal case no. 142006023.
7. The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the freezing of their bank accounts. Some applicants also raised various complaints under Articles 6, 10, 11, 13 and 18 of the Convention.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
I. 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.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF protocol no. 1 to THE CONVENTION
9. The applicants complained that the freezing of their bank accounts had amounted to a violation of their property rights.
10. The Government submitted that the applicant in application no. 59462/14 had failed to exhaust domestic remedies because she had not raised this complaint before the domestic courts and that the applicants in applications nos. 74275/14, 74333/14 and 74559/14 had failed to exhaust domestic remedies because they had not lodged a new request with the domestic courts in accordance with Article 121.3 of the CCrP. The Government also submitted that as there were only 150 Azerbaijani manats (AZN) (approximately 75 euros (EUR) at the material time), AZN 60 (approximately EUR 30 at the material time) and AZN 100 (approximately EUR 50 at the material time) in the bank accounts of the applicants in applications nos. 74299/14, 74363/14 and 74622/14 respectively, they had not suffered a significant disadvantage.
11. The applicants in applications nos. 59462/14, 74275/14, 74333/14 and 74559/14 disagreed with the Government’s submissions, submitting that they had exhausted domestic remedies. The applicants in applications nos. 74299/14, 74363/14 and 74622/14 also disagreed with the Government’s submissions, submitting that they had suffered a significant disadvantage because the freezing of their bank accounts did not concern only the amounts in their bank accounts at that time, but had also prevented them from using their banks accounts for a long period.
12. The Court observes that although the Government submitted that the applicant in application no. 59462/14 had not complained of the alleged violation of her property rights before the domestic courts, it is clear from the documents in the case file that she had expressly raised that complaint in her appeal, relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court also notes that it has previously found that a request lodged in accordance with Article 121.3 of the CCrP could not constitute an effective remedy in respect of the freezing of the bank accounts ordered on the basis of a court decision (see Democracy and Human Rights Resource Centre and Mustafayev v. Azerbaijan, nos. 74288/14 and 64568/16, §§ 58-60, 14 October 2021) and does not see any reason to depart from that finding in the instant case. The Court therefore finds that the Government’s objections concerning the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies should be dismissed.
13. As to the Government’s objection concerning the lack of a significant disadvantage, the Court reiterates that a violation of a right, however real from a purely legal point of view, should be sufficiently severe to warrant consideration by an international court. The assessment of the minimum level of severity is relative and depends on all the circumstances of the case, taking account of both the applicant’s subjective perceptions and what is objectively at stake. The applicant’s subjective feeling about the impact of the alleged violations has to be justifiable on objective grounds (see Korolev v. Russia (dec.), no. 25551/05, ECHR 2010). The finding that no such disadvantage exists can be based on criteria such as the financial impact of the matter in dispute or the importance of the case for the applicant (see Gulmammadov v. Azerbaijan (dec.), no. 33234/08, § 25, 12 December 2017), but also the nature of the right allegedly violated, the seriousness of the claimed violation and/or the potential consequences of the violation on the personal situation of the applicant. In assessing these consequences, the Court will examine, in particular, what is at stake or the outcome of the national proceedings (see Giusti v. Italy, no. 13175/03, § 34, 18 October 2011).
14. In the present cases, the Court notes that, although the amounts of money available at the relevant time in the bank accounts of the applicants in applications nos. 74299/14, 74363/14 and 74622/14 could be considered modest, the restrictions imposed by the domestic authorities were not limited to the use of the money then available in the bank accounts, but also concerned the freezing of the bank accounts for the duration of the criminal investigation. Therefore, the issue at stake was the freezing of their bank accounts for an indefinite period of time, preventing them from using those accounts. That situation had serious implications for the exercise of their professional activities, entailing a number of impediments to activities requiring the use of their bank accounts. The Court thus cannot accept that the applicants in question did not suffer a significant disadvantage and dismisses the Government’s objection.
15. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
16. The Court refers to the general principles established in its case-law and set out in Democracy and Human Rights Resource Centre and Mustafayev (cited above, §§ 66-67), which are equally pertinent to the present case.
17. In the present case, it was not disputed by the parties that there had been an interference with the applicants’ property rights on account of the freezing of their bank accounts and the Court shares this view.
18. As to the question whether the interference was in accordance with law, the Court notes that in Democracy and Human Rights Resource Centre and Mustafayev (cited above, §§ 69-72), having examined an identical complaint based on the same facts, the Court found that the freezing of the applicants’ bank accounts under Article 248 of the CCrP within the framework of criminal case no. 142006023 could not be considered lawful within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The Court considers that the analysis and finding it made in the Democracy and Human Rights Resource Centre and Mustafayev judgment also apply to the present case and sees no reason to depart from that finding.
19. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of the freezing of the applicants’ bank accounts by the domestic authorities.
III. OTHER COMPLAINTS
20. Relying on Articles 6, 10, 11, 13 and 18 of the Convention, some applicants also complained that their right to a fair trial had been breached, that the freezing of their bank accounts had constituted an unjustified interference with their right to freedom of expression and freedom of association, that they had not had effective domestic remedies at their disposal, and that their Convention rights had been restricted for purposes other than those prescribed in the Convention.
21. Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and its findings above, the Court considers that it has dealt with the main legal question raised by the case and that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
22. The applicants each claimed different amounts, varying between 20,000 euros (EUR) and EUR 30,000, in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Some applicants also claimed in respect of pecuniary damage various amounts corresponding to the amounts of money that they had held in their bank accounts at the time when their bank accounts had been frozen. Lastly, the applicants each claimed different amounts, varying between EUR 2,300 and EUR 7,000, in respect of costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings before the domestic courts and the Court. They submitted the relevant contracts with Mr K. Bagirov, Mr J. Javadov and Mr Y. Imanov. The applicants represented by Mr K. Bagirov and Mr J. Javadov also asked that any sum awarded in that connection be paid directly into the bank account of Mr K. Bagirov and Mr J. Javadov, respectively.
23. The Government asked the Court to reject the applicants’ claims, considering them excessive and unsubstantiated.
24. The Court notes that the applicants were not deprived of the amounts of money available in their bank accounts as a result of the freezing of those accounts; it therefore rejects this claim (see Democracy and Human Rights Resource Centre and Mustafayev, cited above, § 120). However, it awards each applicant the sum of EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable.
25. Having regard to the documents in its possession, the fact that some of the applicants were represented by the same lawyers, and that substantial parts of their submissions were similar, the Court considers it reasonable to award each applicant EUR 300 covering costs under all heads, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them, and dismisses the remainder of the claims.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention admissible;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;
4. Holds that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints;
5. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay each applicant, 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:
(i) EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 300 (three hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, for costs and expenses, to be paid directly into the bank account of Mr K. Bagirov and Mr J. Javadov in respect of those applicants represented by them;
(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;
6. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 16 February 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv Tigerstedt Krzysztof Wojtyczek
Deputy Registrar President
__________
APPENDIX
| No. | Application no. Date of introduction |
Case name | Applicant Year of birth/ registration Place of residence |
Represented by | Relevant final decisions in the domestic proceedings |
| 1. | 59462/14 19/08/2014 |
Imranova v. Azerbaijan | Aynura Imran gizi IMRANOVA 1976 Zardab |
Khalid Bagirov | The Baku Court of Appeal’s decision of 26/05/2014 |
| 2. | 74254/14 19/11/2014 |
Economic Research Centre v. Azerbaijan | ECONOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE Baku |
Khalid Bagirov | The Baku Court of Appeal’s decisions of 05/09/2014 and 09/09/2014 |
| 3. | 74275/14 26/11/2014 |
Center For National and International Studies v. Azerbaijan | CENTER FOR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES 2005 Baku |
Khalid Bagirov | The Baku Court of Appeal’s decision of 06/08/2014 |
| 4. | 74299/14 19/11/2014 |
Bayramov v. Azerbaijan | Gubad Ibad oglu IBADOGLU 1971 Baku |
Khalid Bagirov | The Baku Court of Appeal’s decisions of 05/09/2014 and 09/09/2014 |
| 5. | 74333/14 19/11/2014 |
Institute For Reporters Freedom and Safety Public Union v. Azerbaijan | INSTITUTE FOR REPORTERS FREEDOM AND SAFETY PUBLIC UNION 2006 Baku |
Khalid Bagirov | The Baku Court of Appeal’s decisions of 04/08/2014 and 17/09/2014 |
| 6. | 74363/14 19/11/2014 |
Abdullayev v. Azerbaijan | Elchin Logman oglu ABDULLAYEV 1974 Shirvan |
Khalid Bagirov | The Baku Court of Appeal’s decision of 31/07/2014 |
| 7. | 74448/14 19/11/2014 |
Intigam Aliyev v. Azerbaijan | Intigam Kamil oglu ALIYEV 1962 Absheron |
Javad Javadov Ramute Remezaite Philip Leach Jessica Gavron |
The Baku Court of Appeal’s decision of 04/08/2014 |
| 8. | 74454/14 19/11/2014 |
Legal Education Society v. Azerbaijan | LEGAL EDUCATION SOCIETY 1999 Baku |
Javad Javadov | Baku Court of Appeal’s decision of 04/08/2014 |
| 9. | 74481/14 19/11/2014 |
Azerbaijan Lawyers Association v. Azerbaijan | AZERBAIJAN LAWYERS ASSOCIATION 2000 Baku |
Khalid Bagirov | Baku Court of Appeal’s decision of 04/08/2014 |
| 10. | 74528/14 19/11/2014 |
Hajibeyli v. Azerbaijan | Annagi Bahadur oglu HAJIBEYLI 1955 Baku |
Khalid Bagirov | Baku Court of Appeal’s decision of 04/08/2014 |
| 11. | 74553/14 19/11/2014 |
Democratic Institutions and Human Rights Public Association v. Azerbaijan | DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS PUBLIC ASSOCIATION 2007 Baku |
Khalid Bagirov | Baku Court of Appeal’s decision of 31/07/2014 |
| 12. | 74559/14 26/11/2014 |
Huseynov v. Azerbaijan | Emin Rafik oglu HUSEYNOV 1979 GENEVE |
Khalid Bagirov | Baku Court of Appeal’s decisions of 04/08/2014 and 17/09/2014 |
| 13. | 74573/14 19/11/2014 |
Public Association For Assistance To Free Economy v. Azerbaijan | PUBLIC ASSOCIATION FOR ASSISTANCE TO FREE ECONOMY 2006 Baku |
Khalid Bagirov | Baku Court of Appeal’s decision of 18/07/2014 |
| 14. | 74589/14 19/11/2014 |
Ismayilov v. Azerbaijan | Zohrab Neyman oglu ISMAYILOV 1971 Baku |
Khalid Bagirov | Baku Court of Appeal’s decision of 16 /07/2014 |
| 15. | 74622/14 19/11/2014 |
Jafarov v. Azerbaijan | Rasul Agahasan oglu JAFAROV 1984 Baku |
Khalid Bagirov | Baku Court of Appeal’s decision of 26/09/2014 |
| 16. | 77326/14 19/11/2014 |
Bagirova v. Azerbaijan | Gulnara Mikayil gizi BAGIROVA 1976 Baku |
Khalid Bagirov | Baku Court of Appeal’s decision of 18/07/2014 |
| 17. | 55353/15 23/10/2015 |
Mehdiyeva v. Azerbaijan | Saadat Akif gizi MEHDIYEVA 1975 Baku |
Yalchin Imanov | Baku Court of Appeal’s decision of 14/05/2015 |
| 18. | 58938/15 10/11/2015 |
Akhundova v. Azerbaijan | Ulviyya Rafayil gizi AKHUNDOVA 1986 Baku |
Yalchin Imanov | Baku Court of Appeal’s decision of 12/05/2015 |
Leave a Reply