I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in MAMMAD AZIZOV v. AZERBAIJAN.

Information

  • Judgment date: 2020-03-05
  • Communication date: 2016-03-03
  • Application number(s): 65583/13
  • Country:   AZE
  • Relevant ECHR article(s): 5, 5-3, 18
  • Conclusion:
    Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings
    Article 6-1 - Access to court)
    Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)
  • Result: Violation
  • SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

  • Probability: 0.911251
  • Prediction: Violation
  • Consistent


Legend

 In line with the court's judgment
 In opposition to the court's judgment
Darker color: higher probability
: In line with the court's judgment  
: In opposition to the court's judgment

Communication text used for prediction

The applicant, Mr Mammad Azizov, is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1992 and lives in Baku.
He is represented before the Court by Mr F. Namazli, a lawyer practising in Azerbaijan.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
A.
Institution of criminal proceedings against the applicant and his remand in custody The applicant was a student at the Baku State University at the time of the events.
He was also a member of NIDA civic movement (“NIDA”), a non-governmental organisation established in 2011.
The applicant and other members of NIDA actively participated in the demonstrations held in Baku in January and February 2013 to protest against death of soldiers in the Azerbaijani Army.
On 7 March 2013 the applicant was arrested by plain-clothes police officers in the city centre.
The police officers took him to the flat where he lived and carried out a search in the flat.
Following the search, 174 grams of narcotic substances and twenty-eight leaflets worded “Democracy urgently needed, tel: + 994, address: Azerbaijan” were found in the flat.
On 9 March 2013 the applicant was charged with the criminal offence of illegal possession of a quantity of narcotic substances exceeding that necessary for personal use without intent to sell under Article 234.1 of the Criminal Code.
On the same day the Nasimi District Court ordered the applicant’s detention for a period of two months.
The court justified the applicant’s detention pending trial by the gravity of the charges and the likelihood that if released he might abscond from and obstruct the investigation.
The applicant did not appeal against the Nasimi District Court’s decision of 9 March 2013.
B.
Extension of the applicant’s pre-trial detention On 15 March 2013 the applicant lodged a request with the Nasimi District Court asking to be put under house arrest in place of pre-trial detention.
He claimed, in particular, that there was no risk of his absconding from or obstructing the investigation and that the courts had failed to take into consideration his personal situation.
On 18 March 2013 the Nasimi District Court dismissed the request, finding that there was no need to change the preventive measure of remand in custody.
On 27 March 2013 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s decision.
On 2 May 2013 the Nasimi District Court extended the applicant’s detention pending trial by two months, until 7 July 2013.
The court substantiated the necessity of the extension of the applicant’s detention pending trial by the complexity of the case, the possibility of his absconding from the investigation, the necessity of additional time to carry out further investigative actions, as well as his way of life and his links with foreign States.
On 4 May 2013 the applicant appealed against this decision, claiming that the Nasimi District Court had failed to justify the extension of his pre‐trial detention.
On 13 May 2013 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s decision.
On 2 July and 29 August 2013 the Nasimi District Court again extended the applicant’s detention pending trial, respectively, for a period of two and three months.
The court relied on the same grounds, such as the gravity of the charges, the complexity of the case, the existence of the risk of absconding and the necessity of additional time to carry out further investigative actions.
The Nasimi District Court’s extension decisions were upheld on appeal by the Baku Court of Appeal, respectively, on 10 July and on 6 September 2013.
It appears from the case file that on 14 September 2013 the applicant was charged with the new criminal offences under Articles 28 (preparation for committing a criminal offence), 220.1 (mass disorder) and 228.3 (illegal possession of weapons, committed by an organised group) of the Criminal Code.
COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the domestic courts failed to justify his detention pending trial and that there were no relevant and sufficient reasons for his continued detention.

Judgment

FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF KLADNIČANIN v. SERBIA
(Application no.
137/10)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG
5 March 2020

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Kladničanin v. Serbia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President,Georges Ravarani,Jolien Schukking, judges,and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 13 February 2020,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1.
The case originated in an application against Serbia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 22 October 2009. 2. The applicant was represented by Ms Župić, a lawyer practising in Novi Pazar. 3. The Serbian 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 non-enforcement of a domestic decision given against a socially/State-owned company. THE LAW
6.
The applicant complained of the non-enforcement of a domestic decision given in her favour. She relied, expressly or in substance, on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which read as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”
Article 1 of Protocol No.
1
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.
No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”
7.
The Court reiterates that the execution of a judgment given by any court must be regarded as an integral part of a “hearing” for the purposes of Article 6. It also refers to its case-law concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of final domestic judgments (see Hornsby v. Greece, no. 18357/91, § 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997‐II). 8. In the leading case of R. Kačapor and Others v. Serbia, nos. 2269/06 and 5 others, 15 January 2008, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 9. The Court further notes that the decision in the present application ordered specific action to be taken. The Court therefore considers that the decision in question constitutes “possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. 10. 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 authorities did not deploy all necessary efforts to enforce fully and in due time the decisions in the applicant’s favour. 11. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. 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, Stošić v. Serbia, no. 64931/10, 1 October 2013), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table. 14. The Court further notes that the respondent State has an obligation to pay any outstanding judgment debt from its own funds. 15. 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,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay jointly to the applicant’s heirs indicated in the appended table, within three months, the amount 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 amount 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 5 March 2020, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv TigerstedtStéphanie Mourou-Vikström Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident

APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.
1
(non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given against socially/State-owned companies)
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Date of birth
Relevant domestic decision
Start date of non-enforcement period
End date of non-enforcement period
Length of enforcement proceedings
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses jointly to the applicant’s heirs
(in euros)[1] [2]
137/10
22/10/2009
Nadžija KLADNIČANIN
b: 31/12/1954
d: 04/08/2010

Pursued by heirs:
Indira Kladničanin
15/06/1965
Safudin Kladničanin
15/02/1970
Municipal Court in Novi Pazar 24/05/2004

25/10/2004

pending
More than 15 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 30 day(s)

2,000

Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Date of birth
Relevant domestic decision
Start date of non-enforcement period
End date of non-enforcement period
Length of enforcement proceedings
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses jointly to the applicant’s heirs
(in euros)[1] [2]
137/10
22/10/2009
Nadžija KLADNIČANIN
b: 31/12/1954
d: 04/08/2010

Pursued by heirs:
Indira Kladničanin
15/06/1965
Safudin Kladničanin
15/02/1970
Municipal Court in Novi Pazar 24/05/2004

25/10/2004

pending
More than 15 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 30 day(s)

2,000
[1].
Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. [2]. Less any amounts which may have already been paid in that regard at the domestic level.