Last Updated on April 24, 2019 by LawEuro
FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no.45002/14
Khanaga AGAYEV
against Azerbaijan
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 31 January 2019 as a Committee composed of:
Síofra O’Leary, President,
Mārtiņš Mits,
Lado Chanturia, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 June 2014,
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 A. Gasimov, a lawyer practising in Azerbaijan at the material time.
The applicant’s complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the non-enforcement of a domestic court’s decision 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 delayed enforcement of the domestic decision. They offered to pay the applicant the amount detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the applicationout of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amount 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 this amount 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. The Court has not received a response from the applicant accepting the terms of the declaration.
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, Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75‑77, ECHR 2003-VI).
The Court has established clear and extensive case-law in respect of Azerbaijan concerning complaints relating to the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions (see, for example, Akhundov v. Azerbaijan, no. 39941/07, 3 February 2011; Jafarli and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 36079/06, 29 July 2010; and Faber Firm and Jafarov v. Azerbaijan, no. 3365/08, 25 November 2010).
Noting the admission contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).
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 (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 unilateral 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 21 February 2019.
Liv Tigerstedt Síofra O’Leary
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
| Application no. Date of introduction |
Applicant’s name
Date of birth |
Representative’s name and location | Relevant domestic decision | Date of receipt of Government’s declaration | Date of receipt of applicant’s comments, if any | Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damageand costs and expenses
(in euros)[i] |
| 45002/14
06/06/2014 |
Khanaga Agali oglu Agayev
01/10/1958 |
Gasimov Azer Alkhan oglu
Baku |
The Khazar District Court, 11/02/2013 | 06/05/2016 | — | 100 |
[i]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
Leave a Reply