CASE OF MAMMADOV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN – 23689/14 and 7 others

Last Updated on September 21, 2023 by LawEuro

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

FIRST SECTION
CASE OF MAMMADOV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
(Application no. 23689/14 and 7 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
21 September 2023

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

In the case of Mammadov and Others v. Azerbaijan,

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Krzysztof Wojtyczek, President,
Lətif Hüseynov,
Ivana Jelić, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 31 August 2023,
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. Some of the applicants also complained under other provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW

I. 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.

II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 of the Convention

6. Relying on Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention, the applicants complained that they had not committed any administrative offence and that they had not had a fair hearing, since the domestic courts’ decisions had lacked adequate reasoning. The Court considers that these complaints fall to be examined solely under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Hasanov v. Azerbaijan, [Committee], no. 59202/12, § 16, 28 April 2022, and Ahmadli v. Azerbaijan, [Committee], 52286/11, § 7, 30 June 2022).

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, Hasanov and Majidli v. Azerbaijan, nos. 9626/14 and 9717/14, 7 October 2021, Savalanli v. Azerbaijan, [Committee], no. 30608/14, 14 January 2021, and Ibrahimov v. Azerbaijan, [Committee], no. 39466/16, 14 January 2021, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

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 cases 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 § 1 of the Convention.

9. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

III. remaining complaints

10. Relying on Articles 6, 7, 10 and 18 of the Convention, some applicants also made additional complaints related to the same facts and legal issues which had been examined by the Court (see paragraphs 7-9 above).

11. Having regard to the facts of the cases, the submissions of the parties and its findings under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal questions raised in the present applications and there is no need to give a separate ruling on the remaining complaints (see, among other authorities, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014, and references cited therein; Mehman Aliyev and Others v. Azerbaijan [Committee], no. 46930/10 and 11 others, §§ 52-54, 20 May 2021; Azer Ahmadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 3409/10, §§ 77-79, 22 July 2021; and Imranova and others v. Azerbaijan, [Committee], nos. 59462/14 and 17 others, § 21, 16 February 2023).

IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

12. Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”

13. 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; and Safarov and others v. Azerbaijan, [Committee], nos. 1476/18 and 19 others, 23 March 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 of the Convention admissible and finds that there is no need to examine separately the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints raised by some applicants;

3. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the unfair trial in administrative offence proceedings;

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;

Done in English, and notified in writing on 21 September 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Viktoriya Maradudina Krzysztof Wojtyczek
Acting Deputy Registrar President

___________

APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 of the Convention
(unfair trial in administrative offence proceedings)

No.	Application no. Date of introduction	Applicant’s name Year of birth	Representative’s name and location	Administrative charges	Penalty	Date of final domestic decision Name of court	Specific defects in respect of the main complaints	Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant (in euros)[i]	Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application (in euros)[ii]
1.	23689/14 11/03/2014	Zaur Nazim oglu MAMMADOV 1994	Asabali MUSTAFAYEV Sumgayit Ruslan MUSTAFAZADE Sumgayit	Article 310 of the CAO (at the material time)	Fifteen-days’ administrative detention	Baku Court of Appeal 24/10/2013	art. 6 (1) – insufficient or manifestly unreasonable justification of court decisions (see Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 60259/11, §§ 83-87, 15 October 2015, and Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 67360/11 and 2 others, §§ 119-24, 11 February 2016).	1,000	250 (to be paid directly to the representative Mr Ruslan Mustafazade’s bank account)
2.	24061/15 30/04/2015	Khalid Bahman oglu GARAYEV 1981	Samira AGAYEVA Baku	Article 310 of the CAO (at the material time)	Twenty-five-days’ administrative detention	Baku Court of Appeal 06/11/2014	art. 6 (1) – insufficient or manifestly unreasonable justification of court decisions (see Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 60259/11, §§ 83-87, 15 October 2015, and Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 67360/11 and 2 others, §§ 119-24, 11 February 2016).	1,000	250 (to be paid directly to the representative Ms Samira Agayeva’s bank account)
3.	47633/15 31/08/2015	Razim Rza oglu RZAYEV 1964	Khalid BAGIROV Baku	Articles 296 and 310 of the CAO (at the material time)	Six-days’ administrative detention	Shaki Court of Appeal 05/08/2015	art. 6 (1) – insufficient or manifestly unreasonable justification of court decisions (see Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 60259/11, §§ 83-87, 15 October 2015, and Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 67360/11 and 2 others, §§ 119-24, 11 February 2016).	1,000	250 (to be paid directly to the representative Mr Khalid Bagirov’s bank account)
4.	60146/16 06/10/2016	Ismayil Yahya oglu RASULOV 1957	Asabali MUSTAFAYEV Sumgayit Ruslan MUSTAFAZADE Sumgayit	Article 535 of the CAO	Six-days’ administrative detention	Baku Court of Appeal 30/08/2016	art. 6 (1) – insufficient or manifestly unreasonable justification of court decisions (see Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 60259/11, §§ 83-87, 15 October 2015, and Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 67360/11 and 2 others, §§ 119-24, 11 February 2016).	1,000	250 (to be paid directly to the representative Mr Ruslan Mustafazade’s bank account)
5.	60955/16 08/10/2016	Ruslan Abdulkhan oglu GARAYEV 1989	Asabali MUSTAFAYEV Sumgayit Ruslan MUSTAFAZADE Sumgayit	Articles 510 and 535 of the CAO	Twenty-days’ administrative detention	Sumgayit Court of Appeal 06/08/2016	art. 6 (1) – insufficient or manifestly unreasonable justification of court decisions (see Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 60259/11, §§ 83-87, 15 October 2015, and Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 67360/11 and 2 others, §§ 119-24, 11 February 2016).	1,000	250 (to be paid directly to the representative Mr Ruslan Mustafazade’s bank account)
6.	66391/16 31/10/2016	Amid Yusif oglu SULEYMANOV 1987	Nemat KARIMLI Baku	Article 535 of the CAO	Ten-days’ administrative detention	Baku Court of Appeal 07/06/2016	art. 6 (1) – insufficient or manifestly unreasonable justification of court decisions (see Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 60259/11, §§ 83-87, 15 October 2015, and Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 67360/11 and 2 others, §§ 119-24, 11 February 2016).	1,000	250 (to be paid directly to the representative Mr Nemat Karimli’s bank account)
7.	77240/16 03/12/2016	Samir Rustam oglu HASANOV 1984	Yalchin IMANOV Sumgayit	Articles 510 and 535 of the CAO	Fifteen-days’ administrative detention	Shaki Court of Appeal 04/06/2016	art. 6 (1) – insufficient or manifestly unreasonable justification of court decisions (see Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 60259/11, §§ 83-87, 15 October 2015, and Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 67360/11 and 2 others, §§ 119-24, 11 February 2016).	1,000	250
8.	64427/17 21/08/2017	Gadir Fizuli oglu AGAKISHIYEV 1988	Fariz NAMAZLI Baku	Article 535 of the CAO	Thirty-days’ administrative detention	Sumgayit Court of Appeal 24/02/2017	art. 6 (1) – insufficient or manifestly unreasonable justification of court decisions (see Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 60259/11, §§ 83-87, 15 October 2015, and Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 67360/11 and 2 others, §§ 119-24, 11 February 2016).	1,000	250

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

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

Leave a Reply Cancel reply