{"id":21187,"date":"2023-09-21T09:44:48","date_gmt":"2023-09-21T09:44:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=21187"},"modified":"2023-09-21T09:44:58","modified_gmt":"2023-09-21T09:44:58","slug":"case-of-aliyev-and-babayev-azerbaijan","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=21187","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF ALIYEV AND BABAYEv. AZERBAIJAN – 10084\/21 and 19549\/22"},"content":{"rendered":"

The applicants complained of the lack of justification for their pre-trial detention. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the domestic courts failed to justify the need for the applicants\u2019 pre-trial detention. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article\u00a05\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03 of the Convention.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

FIRST SECTION
\nCASE OF ALIYEV AND BABAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 10084\/21 and 19549\/22)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n21 September 2023<\/p>\n

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n

In the case of Aliyev and Babayev v. Azerbaijan,<\/strong><\/p>\n

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
\nKrzysztof Wojtyczek, President,
\nL\u0259tif H\u00fcseynov,
\nIvana Jeli\u0107, judges,
\nand Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
\nHaving deliberated in private on 31 August 2023,<\/p>\n

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n

PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. The case originated in applications against Azerbaijan lodged with the Court under Article\u00a034 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n

2. The applicants were represented by Mr J. Javadov, a lawyer based in Azerbaijan.<\/p>\n

3. The Azerbaijani Government (\u201cthe\u00a0Government\u201d) were given notice of the applicants\u2019 complaints under Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n

4. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n

5. The applicants complained of the lack of justification for their pre-trial detention.<\/p>\n

THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n

I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n

6. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.<\/p>\n

II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n

7. The applicants complained that the domestic courts had failed to justify the necessity for the application of preventive measure of pre-trial detention in their cases. They relied on Article\u00a05\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

8. In the leading cases of Farhad Aliyev v. Azerbaijan (no. 37138\/06, 9\u00a0November 2010), Isayeva v. Azerbaijan (no. 36229\/11, 25 June 2015), and Zayidov v. Azerbaijan (no. 11948\/08, 20 February 2014), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.<\/p>\n

9. 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 case the domestic courts failed to justify the need for the applicants\u2019 pre-trial detention.<\/p>\n

10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article\u00a05\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n

11. Article 41 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n

\u201cIf 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

12. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, Farhad Aliyev and Zayidov, both cited above, and Novruz Ismayilov v. Azerbaijan, no. 16794\/05, 20 February 2014), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n

2. Declares the applications admissible;<\/p>\n

3. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article\u00a05\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03 of the Convention concerning the lack of justification for pre-trial detention;<\/p>\n

4. Holds<\/p>\n

(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;<\/p>\n

(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.<\/p>\n

Done in English, and notified in writing on 21 September 2023, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and\u00a03 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n

Viktoriya Maradudina\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Krzysztof Wojtyczek
\nActing Deputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n

___________<\/p>\n

APPENDIX<\/strong>
\nList of applications raising complaints under Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention
\n(lack of justification for pre-trial detention)<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
No.<\/strong><\/td>\nApplication no.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Date of introduction<\/strong><\/td>\n

Applicant\u2019s name<\/strong><\/p>\n

Year of birth<\/strong><\/td>\n

Period of detention<\/strong><\/td>\nLength of detention<\/strong><\/td>\nSpecific defects<\/strong><\/td>\nAmount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant<\/strong><\/p>\n

(in euros)[1]<\/a><\/strong><\/td>\n

Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application<\/strong><\/p>\n

(in euros)[2]<\/a><\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n

1.<\/td>\n10084\/21<\/p>\n

18\/01\/2021<\/td>\n

Ilham<\/strong><\/p>\n

Aligulu oglu<\/strong><\/p>\n

ALIYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1977<\/td>\n

29\/02\/2020 to<\/p>\n

28\/12\/2020<\/td>\n

10 months<\/td>\nFragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; failure to examine the possibility, as the case progressed, of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial.<\/td>\n3,000<\/td>\n500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2.<\/td>\n19549\/22<\/p>\n

23\/03\/2022<\/td>\n

Sardar<\/strong><\/p>\n

Akif oglu<\/strong><\/p>\n

BABAYEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

1974<\/td>\n

20\/10\/2021<\/p>\n

to<\/p>\n

19\/03\/2023<\/td>\n

1 year and 5 months<\/td>\nFragility of the reasons employed by the courts; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed; failure to examine the possibility, as the case progressed, of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial.<\/td>\n4,500<\/td>\n500<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

[1]<\/a> Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.<\/p>\n