European Court of Human Rights

 

 

FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF HAJIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

(Application no. 43389/16)

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

STRASBOURG

10 February 2022

 

 

 

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

 

In the case of Hajiyev v. Azerbaijan,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

          Lado Chanturia, President,
          Lətif Hüseynov,
          Arnfinn Bårdsen, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 20 January 2022,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in an application against Azerbaijan lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 20 July 2016.

2.  The applicant was represented by Mr A. Layij, a lawyer based in Azerbaijan.

3.  The Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.

THE FACTS

4.  The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.

5.  The applicant complained of the lack of justification for his pre-trial detention.

THE LAW

I.         ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION

6.  The applicant complained that the domestic courts had failed to justify the necessity for the application of preventive measure of pre-trial detention. He relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

“Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be ... entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.”

7.  The Court observes that the general principles regarding the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial, as guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, have been stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000‑XI, and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2006‑X, with further references).

8.  In the leading cases of Farhad Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 37138/06, 9 November 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.

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 applicant’s pre-trial detention.

10.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

II.      APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

11.  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.”

12.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Farhad Aliyev, cited above, Zayidov, 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.

13.  The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1.      Declares the application admissible;

2.      Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the lack of justification for pre-trial detention;

3.      Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, 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 10 February 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

                       

      Viktoriya Maradudina                                             Lado Chanturia

    Acting Deputy Registrar                                                President

 

                       

 

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention

(lack of justification for pre-trial detention)