I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in ELECTION MONITORING AND DEMOCRACY EDUCATION CENTRE AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN.
Information
- Judgment date: 2023-01-12
- Communication date: 2016-03-15
- Application number(s): 70981/11
- Country: AZE
- Relevant ECHR article(s): 11, 11-1, 34
- Conclusion:
Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of association)
Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of application) - Result: Violation SEE FINAL JUDGMENT
JURI Prediction
- Probability: 0.734735
- Prediction: Violation
Consistent
Legend
Communication text used for prediction
A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.
The applicants are represented by Mr I. Aliyev, a lawyer practicing in Azerbaijan.
The Election Monitoring and Democracy Education Centre (Seçkilərin Monitorinqi və Demokratiyanın Tədrisi Mərkəzi- “the Centre”) was a non‐governmental organisation (“NGO”) specialising in monitoring of elections established on 1 December 2008.
It was founded by Messrs Anar Mammadli, Bashir Suleymanli and Suliddin Asgarov.
Mr Anar Mammadli was the Centre’s chairman.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
On 26 January 2009 the applicants lodged a request with the Ministry of Justice (“the Ministry”) for the Centre’s state registration as a legal entity, as required by the domestic law, together with the relevant documents.
While the domestic law did not require NGOs to be officially registered, effective operation of an NGO, including an ability to receive and register grants, open bank accounts and so on, was contingent on obtaining the status of a legal entity.
By a letter of 12 March 2009, the Ministry informed the applicants that the time-limits for examination of their request had been extended for a period of thirty days and that they would be informed of the result of the examination.
By a letter of 29 April 2009 the Ministry returned the registration documents without taking a decision on state registration.
It noted that the applicants had failed to submit a copy of the decision on the establishment of the Centre and the approval of its charter.
The Ministry further noted that the name of the Law on Non-Governmental Organisations (Public Associations and Funds) was not correctly written in section 1.4 of the Centre’s charter.
On 13 May 2009 the applicants lodged an action with the Yasamal District Court, complaining about the violation of their right to freedom of association and asking the court to order the Ministry to carry out the Centre’s state registration.
They claimed that the grounds to which the Ministry had referred for return of the registration documents could not constitute a basis under the domestic law for refusal to carry out state registration of an NGO.
They also claimed that the Ministry had extended the time-limits for examination of their request without any reason and had failed to reply to their request within the time-limits provided for by the domestic law.
In the meantime, the applicants also re-submitted the state registration request, carrying out the required modifications in the documents.
On 18 August 2009 the Ministry returned the registration documents again finding other deficiencies in the documents submitted to it.
The Ministry held that it did not appear from the documents submitted whether the Centre had been established on a permanent basis or for achieving particular objectives.
On 2 September 2009 the Yasamal District Court dismissed the applicants’ claim, finding nothing unlawful in the actions of the Ministry.
On 2 October 2009 the applicants appealed against this judgment, reiterating their previous complaints.
On 17 December 2009 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first‐instance court’s judgment.
On 13 August 2010 the Supreme Court quashed the lower courts’ judgments and remitted the case to the appellate court for a new examination.
The Supreme Court held that the lower courts had failed to examine whether the Ministry’s actions had violated the applicants’ right protected under Article 11 of the Convention.
On 3 December 2010 the Baku Court of Appeal delivered a new judgment on the merits, dismissing again the applicants’ appeal.
It held that the applicants had failed to provide the Ministry with all the required documents for the Centre’s state registration and that there had been no violation of the applicants’ right under Article 11 of the Convention.
On 20 April 2011 the Supreme Court upheld the Baku Court of Appeal’s judgment of 3 December 2010.
The applicants were provided with a copy of the Supreme Court’s decision on 6 May 2011.
On 8 August 2014 the applicants’ representative before the Court, Mr I. Aliyev, was arrested on charges of tax evasion, abuse of power and illegal entrepreneurship.
On 8 and 9 August 2014 the prosecuting authorities conducted a search of Mr Aliyev’s home and office.
During the search, a large number of documents, including all the case files relating to the applications before the Court that were in Mr I. Aliyev’s possession as a representative, were seized by the domestic authorities.
By a fax dated 28 August 2014, Mr I. Aliyev informed the Court of the seizure of the case files claiming a breach of Article 34 of the Convention in respect of all the applications affected.
In his letters sent to the Court in September 2014 Mr I. Aliyev reiterated the complaint concerning the seizure of the case files.
On 25 October 2014 a part of the seized documents was returned to Javad Javadov, Mr.
I. Aliyev’s counsel.
COMPLAINTS The applicants complain under Article 11 of the Convention that the failure by the Ministry of Justice to register the Centre amounted to a violation of their right to freedom of association.
Judgment
FIRST SECTIONCASE OF ELECTION MONITORING AND DEMOCRACY EDUCATION CENTRE AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
(Application no. 70981/11)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
12 January 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Election Monitoring and Democracy Education Centre and Others v. Azerbaijan,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Krzysztof Wojtyczek, President, Lətif Hüseynov, Erik Wennerström, judges,and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 70981/11) against the Republic of Azerbaijan lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 4 November 2011 by an applicant association and two individual applicants whose details are listed in the appended table (“the applicants”) and who were represented by Mr I. Aliyev, a lawyer based in Azerbaijan;
the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning Articles 11 and 34 of the Convention to the Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Əsgərov, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 6 December 2022,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The present application concerns the refusal by the domestic authorities to register the applicant association established by the two individual applicants. 2. In 2008 the two individual applicants (the second and third applicants, see appended list) established the applicant association, a non-governmental organisation called Election Monitoring and Democracy Education Centre (Seçkilərin Monitorinqi və Demokratiyanın Tədrisi Mərkəzi). They requested the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Azerbaijan (“the Ministry”) to register their association as a legal entity and submitted relevant documents. 3. On 12 March 2009 the Ministry extended by thirty days the time-limit for examination of the documents submitted. 4. In a letter of 29 April 2009 addressed to the second applicant, the Ministry indicated the following alleged deficiencies and returned those documents:
(a) in accordance with Article 5.4 of the Law on State registration and the State register of legal entities (“the Law on State Registration”), a decision to establish the applicant association and adopt its charter should have been submitted, instead of a record of the meeting of the founders at which that decision was taken; and
(b) in section 1.4 of the charter, the title of the Law on Non-Governmental Organisations (Public Associations and Funds) (“the Law on NGOs”) was written incorrectly. 5. Having received the above-mentioned letter, the second and third applicants lodged a complaint against the Ministry with the Yasamal District Court. They argued that the Ministry’s allegations were false and unlawful because they had, in fact, submitted the decision establishing the association and adopting its charter – namely the document entitled “Decision” and subtitled “Extract from the record”. 6. They also argued that there had been no valid “exceptional” reason, as required by Article 8.2 of the Law on State Registration, to extend the time‐limit for examination of the documents submitted. 7. On 2 September 2009 the first-instance court dismissed the complaint, finding nothing unlawful in the Ministry’s actions. The Baku Court of Appeal upheld that judgment on 17 December 2009. However, on 13 August 2010 the Supreme Court quashed the lower courts’ judgments and remitted the case to the appellate court for re-examination. 8. On 3 December 2010 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the complaint, finding that the Ministry had acted lawfully, both by extending the time-limit for examination of the documents and by refusing to register the applicant association. Regarding the refusal, the appellate court emphasised that the first finding made by the Ministry as to alleged deficiencies (summarised in paragraph 4 (a) above) had been lawful. On 20 April 2011 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment, largely reiterating the appellate court’s findings (the Supreme Court’s decision was sent to the applicants on 6 May 2011). 9. In August 2014 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicants’ representative, Mr Aliyev. The investigating authorities seized many documents from his office, including the case file relating to the present application. 10. The applicants complained before the Court that the Ministry’s actions had violated their right to freedom of association. 11. They also complained that the seizure of their case file from the office of their lawyer had been in breach of Article 34 of the Convention. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
12. The applicants argued that the allegations made by the Ministry in its refusal letter had no factual or legal basis. 13. They also argued that there had been no valid “exceptional” reason, as required by the relevant domestic law, to extend the time-limit for examination of the documents submitted. 14. The Government submitted that the Ministry had returned the documents so that the applicants could rectify the deficiencies contained in them. 15. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. 16. The general principles applicable to the present complaint have been summarised in Election Monitoring Centre and Others v. Azerbaijan (no. 64733/09, §§ 65-66 and 69-74, 2 December 2021). 17. As in Election Monitoring Centre and Others, the Court reiterates that the Law on State Registration contained, inter alia, two relevant registration rules prescribed by Articles 8.3 and 11.3.1 respectively. Article 8.3 provided that if the documents submitted contained deficiencies which did not warrant a formal refusal to register an association, the Ministry had to return those documents and give the founders twenty days to rectify those deficiencies. Under Article 11.3.1, registration could be refused if the documents submitted were in breach of the Constitution of Azerbaijan, the Law on State Registration or any other legislation (ibid., § 51). 18. The wording of the Ministry’s letter in the present case was ambiguous as to whether the letter was a decision under Article 11.3.1 of the Law on State Registration “refusing to register” the applicant association or a decision under Article 8.3 of the same Law “returning the documents for rectification” (compare Election Monitoring Centre and Others, cited above, § 52). 19. Nevertheless, the domestic courts treated the Ministry’s letter as a decision under Article 11.3.1 of the Law on State Registration refusing to register the applicant association, without examining whether the letter was procedurally correct. The courts proceeded to declare that the Ministry’s first finding as to alleged deficiencies (summarised in paragraph 4 (a) above) had been lawful and, consequently, that the refusal to register the applicant association had also been lawful (compare and contrast Election Monitoring Centre and Others, cited above, §§ 93 and 54 respectively). 20. It follows, therefore, that the domestic courts treated the alleged deficiency as one warranting a direct refusal to register the applicant association simply because that deficiency constituted a breach of a certain domestic norm – namely Article 5.4 of the Law on State Registration, which required that a decision establishing an association and adopting its charter be attached to a request for registration. 21. In that connection, the Court notes that even though the document submitted by the applicants to the Ministry bore the subtitle “Extract from the record”, the text of that document incorporated a decision establishing the applicant association and adopting its charter. It is not clear, therefore, why the domestic authorities, including the courts, were not satisfied that the applicants had complied with the above-mentioned Article 5.4 of the Law on State Registration. Nor did the Government submit any explanation to that end. 22. However, in the Court’s view, even assuming that there were factual and legal grounds for finding that the documents contained the deficiencies alleged by the Ministry, clearly none of those deficiencies (summarised in paragraph 4 above) concerned substantive issues related to the existence or activities of the applicant association, and they could only be characterised as alleged shortcomings of a procedural or even technical nature. Therefore, it is not clear why the domestic authorities chose not to treat them as “rectifiable deficiencies”. The Court considers that by applying Article 11.3.1 of the Law on State Registration to any, even the slightest, failure to comply with a particular domestic norm – irrespective of the substantiveness of the matter regulated by the norm in question – the domestic authorities adopted an unforeseeably broad interpretation of that Article (compare, mutatis mutandis, Election Monitoring Centre and Others, cited above, § 90). It follows therefore, that the manner in which the domestic law was interpreted and applied in the present case did not afford the applicants protection against arbitrary interferences. 23. Having regard to all the above, the Court finds that the domestic authorities’ refusal to register the applicant association was arbitrary and not “prescribed by law” within the meaning of Article 11 § 2 of the Convention. 24. In view of the above finding, there is no need to examine the other argument raised by the applicants in respect of the present complaint (see paragraph 13 above). 25. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention. 26. The applicants also raised another complaint (see paragraph 11 above) covered by the well‐established case-law of the Court. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that that complaint discloses a violation of Article 34 of the Convention in the light of its findings in Annagi Hajibeyli v. Azerbaijan (no. 2204/11, §§ 64-79, 22 October 2015). APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
27. The applicants claimed jointly 20,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non‐pecuniary damage and EUR 4,700 for costs and expenses (namely EUR 4,500 for legal services and EUR 200 for translation services) incurred before the domestic courts and the Court. 28. The Government submitted that the claims were unsubstantiated and excessive. 29. The Court awards EUR 4,500 to the applicants jointly, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable. 30. Having regard to the documents in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award EUR 500 and EUR 200 to the applicants jointly, for legal and translation services respectively, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants jointly, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 4,500 (four thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 200 (two hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of translation services;
(iii) EUR 500 (five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of legal services, to be paid directly into the bank account of the applicants’ representative, Mr I. Aliyev;
(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 12 January 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Liv Tigerstedt Krzysztof Wojtyczek Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
No. Applicant’s name
Year of birth / establishment
Nationality
Place of residence / establishment
1. ELECTION MONITORING AND DEMOCRACY EDUCATION CENTRE
2008
Baku
2. Anar Asaf oglu MAMMADLI
1978
Azerbaijani
Baku
3. Bashir Suleyman oglu SULEYMANLI
1980
Azerbaijani
Baku
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF ELECTION MONITORING AND DEMOCRACY EDUCATION CENTRE AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
(Application no. 70981/11)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
12 January 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Election Monitoring and Democracy Education Centre and Others v. Azerbaijan,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Krzysztof Wojtyczek, President, Lətif Hüseynov, Erik Wennerström, judges,and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 70981/11) against the Republic of Azerbaijan lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 4 November 2011 by an applicant association and two individual applicants whose details are listed in the appended table (“the applicants”) and who were represented by Mr I. Aliyev, a lawyer based in Azerbaijan;
the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning Articles 11 and 34 of the Convention to the Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Əsgərov, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 6 December 2022,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The present application concerns the refusal by the domestic authorities to register the applicant association established by the two individual applicants. 2. In 2008 the two individual applicants (the second and third applicants, see appended list) established the applicant association, a non-governmental organisation called Election Monitoring and Democracy Education Centre (Seçkilərin Monitorinqi və Demokratiyanın Tədrisi Mərkəzi). They requested the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Azerbaijan (“the Ministry”) to register their association as a legal entity and submitted relevant documents. 3. On 12 March 2009 the Ministry extended by thirty days the time-limit for examination of the documents submitted. 4. In a letter of 29 April 2009 addressed to the second applicant, the Ministry indicated the following alleged deficiencies and returned those documents:
(a) in accordance with Article 5.4 of the Law on State registration and the State register of legal entities (“the Law on State Registration”), a decision to establish the applicant association and adopt its charter should have been submitted, instead of a record of the meeting of the founders at which that decision was taken; and
(b) in section 1.4 of the charter, the title of the Law on Non-Governmental Organisations (Public Associations and Funds) (“the Law on NGOs”) was written incorrectly. 5. Having received the above-mentioned letter, the second and third applicants lodged a complaint against the Ministry with the Yasamal District Court. They argued that the Ministry’s allegations were false and unlawful because they had, in fact, submitted the decision establishing the association and adopting its charter – namely the document entitled “Decision” and subtitled “Extract from the record”. 6. They also argued that there had been no valid “exceptional” reason, as required by Article 8.2 of the Law on State Registration, to extend the time‐limit for examination of the documents submitted. 7. On 2 September 2009 the first-instance court dismissed the complaint, finding nothing unlawful in the Ministry’s actions. The Baku Court of Appeal upheld that judgment on 17 December 2009. However, on 13 August 2010 the Supreme Court quashed the lower courts’ judgments and remitted the case to the appellate court for re-examination. 8. On 3 December 2010 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the complaint, finding that the Ministry had acted lawfully, both by extending the time-limit for examination of the documents and by refusing to register the applicant association. Regarding the refusal, the appellate court emphasised that the first finding made by the Ministry as to alleged deficiencies (summarised in paragraph 4 (a) above) had been lawful. On 20 April 2011 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment, largely reiterating the appellate court’s findings (the Supreme Court’s decision was sent to the applicants on 6 May 2011). 9. In August 2014 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicants’ representative, Mr Aliyev. The investigating authorities seized many documents from his office, including the case file relating to the present application. 10. The applicants complained before the Court that the Ministry’s actions had violated their right to freedom of association. 11. They also complained that the seizure of their case file from the office of their lawyer had been in breach of Article 34 of the Convention. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
12. The applicants argued that the allegations made by the Ministry in its refusal letter had no factual or legal basis. 13. They also argued that there had been no valid “exceptional” reason, as required by the relevant domestic law, to extend the time-limit for examination of the documents submitted. 14. The Government submitted that the Ministry had returned the documents so that the applicants could rectify the deficiencies contained in them. 15. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. 16. The general principles applicable to the present complaint have been summarised in Election Monitoring Centre and Others v. Azerbaijan (no. 64733/09, §§ 65-66 and 69-74, 2 December 2021). 17. As in Election Monitoring Centre and Others, the Court reiterates that the Law on State Registration contained, inter alia, two relevant registration rules prescribed by Articles 8.3 and 11.3.1 respectively. Article 8.3 provided that if the documents submitted contained deficiencies which did not warrant a formal refusal to register an association, the Ministry had to return those documents and give the founders twenty days to rectify those deficiencies. Under Article 11.3.1, registration could be refused if the documents submitted were in breach of the Constitution of Azerbaijan, the Law on State Registration or any other legislation (ibid., § 51). 18. The wording of the Ministry’s letter in the present case was ambiguous as to whether the letter was a decision under Article 11.3.1 of the Law on State Registration “refusing to register” the applicant association or a decision under Article 8.3 of the same Law “returning the documents for rectification” (compare Election Monitoring Centre and Others, cited above, § 52). 19. Nevertheless, the domestic courts treated the Ministry’s letter as a decision under Article 11.3.1 of the Law on State Registration refusing to register the applicant association, without examining whether the letter was procedurally correct. The courts proceeded to declare that the Ministry’s first finding as to alleged deficiencies (summarised in paragraph 4 (a) above) had been lawful and, consequently, that the refusal to register the applicant association had also been lawful (compare and contrast Election Monitoring Centre and Others, cited above, §§ 93 and 54 respectively). 20. It follows, therefore, that the domestic courts treated the alleged deficiency as one warranting a direct refusal to register the applicant association simply because that deficiency constituted a breach of a certain domestic norm – namely Article 5.4 of the Law on State Registration, which required that a decision establishing an association and adopting its charter be attached to a request for registration. 21. In that connection, the Court notes that even though the document submitted by the applicants to the Ministry bore the subtitle “Extract from the record”, the text of that document incorporated a decision establishing the applicant association and adopting its charter. It is not clear, therefore, why the domestic authorities, including the courts, were not satisfied that the applicants had complied with the above-mentioned Article 5.4 of the Law on State Registration. Nor did the Government submit any explanation to that end. 22. However, in the Court’s view, even assuming that there were factual and legal grounds for finding that the documents contained the deficiencies alleged by the Ministry, clearly none of those deficiencies (summarised in paragraph 4 above) concerned substantive issues related to the existence or activities of the applicant association, and they could only be characterised as alleged shortcomings of a procedural or even technical nature. Therefore, it is not clear why the domestic authorities chose not to treat them as “rectifiable deficiencies”. The Court considers that by applying Article 11.3.1 of the Law on State Registration to any, even the slightest, failure to comply with a particular domestic norm – irrespective of the substantiveness of the matter regulated by the norm in question – the domestic authorities adopted an unforeseeably broad interpretation of that Article (compare, mutatis mutandis, Election Monitoring Centre and Others, cited above, § 90). It follows therefore, that the manner in which the domestic law was interpreted and applied in the present case did not afford the applicants protection against arbitrary interferences. 23. Having regard to all the above, the Court finds that the domestic authorities’ refusal to register the applicant association was arbitrary and not “prescribed by law” within the meaning of Article 11 § 2 of the Convention. 24. In view of the above finding, there is no need to examine the other argument raised by the applicants in respect of the present complaint (see paragraph 13 above). 25. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention. 26. The applicants also raised another complaint (see paragraph 11 above) covered by the well‐established case-law of the Court. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that that complaint discloses a violation of Article 34 of the Convention in the light of its findings in Annagi Hajibeyli v. Azerbaijan (no. 2204/11, §§ 64-79, 22 October 2015). APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
27. The applicants claimed jointly 20,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non‐pecuniary damage and EUR 4,700 for costs and expenses (namely EUR 4,500 for legal services and EUR 200 for translation services) incurred before the domestic courts and the Court. 28. The Government submitted that the claims were unsubstantiated and excessive. 29. The Court awards EUR 4,500 to the applicants jointly, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable. 30. Having regard to the documents in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award EUR 500 and EUR 200 to the applicants jointly, for legal and translation services respectively, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants jointly, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 4,500 (four thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 200 (two hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of translation services;
(iii) EUR 500 (five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of legal services, to be paid directly into the bank account of the applicants’ representative, Mr I. Aliyev;
(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 12 January 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Liv Tigerstedt Krzysztof Wojtyczek Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
No. Applicant’s name
Year of birth / establishment
Nationality
Place of residence / establishment
1. ELECTION MONITORING AND DEMOCRACY EDUCATION CENTRE
2008
Baku
2. Anar Asaf oglu MAMMADLI
1978
Azerbaijani
Baku
3. Bashir Suleyman oglu SULEYMANLI
1980
Azerbaijani
Baku
No. Applicant’s name
Year of birth / establishment
Nationality
Place of residence / establishment
1. ELECTION MONITORING AND DEMOCRACY EDUCATION CENTRE
2008
Baku
2. Anar Asaf oglu MAMMADLI
1978
Azerbaijani
Baku
3. Bashir Suleyman oglu SULEYMANLI
1980
Azerbaijani
Baku