CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 3 septembre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s494F418E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-size:7pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s354F7CEB { width:27.79pt; display:inline-block } .sA4FA8E5F { width:143.76pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s94CC84C5 { width:6.4%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s922CFB6E { width:16.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sBBB00727 { width:26.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF4A0F4D { width:22.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7FDD75C9 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.2pt; color:#474747 } .sDC267C70 { width:28.06%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sFF0C5B0 { width:6.4%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sF6FEA060 { width:16.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE2F462BC { width:26.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9DAD0192 { width:22.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sEBEB1373 { width:28.06%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sB343B0AA { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 9327/16 Samir Ramazan oglu AGAYEV against Azerbaijan and 6 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 3   September 2020 as a Committee composed of:   Ganna Yudkivska, President,   Lado Chanturia,   Anja Seibert-Fohr, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants is set out in the appended table. The applicants were represented by Mr R. Mustafazade, a lawyer based in Azerbaijan. The applicants’ complaints under Article 5 § 1, Article 6 § 3 (b) and (c) and Article 9 of the Convention concerning the domestic authorities interference with religious meeting held on private premises were communicated to the Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”). THE LAW Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issue raised by the applications. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. The declarations, which have identical content except the names of the applicants, provide as follows in their relevant parts: 1.     The Government of the Republic of Azerbaijan hereby wishes to express – by way of unilateral declaration – acknowledgement of the fact that there has been a violation of the applicant’s rights guaranteed under the Convention. 2.     The Government is prepared to pay to the applicant, [name of the applicant], the sum of 4,400 euros (EUR) to cover any damages and costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants on this amount. This sum shall be free of any tax that may be applicable and shall be payable within three months from the date of the notification of the striking-out judgment of the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (c) of the European Convention on Human Rights. From the expiry of the above ‑ mentioned period, 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. ... 4.     In the light of above, the Government would suggest that the circumstances of the present cases allow the Court to reach the conclusion that there exists ‘any other reason’, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention, justifying to discontinue the examination of the application, and that, moreover, there are no reasons of a general character, as defined in Article 37 § 1 in fine , which would require the further examination of the case by virtue of that provision. Accordingly, the Government invites the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases. The applicants were invited to submit any comments they wished to make in reply to the Government’s unilateral declarations. However, the Court has not received any response from the applicants. 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 applicants wish the examination of the cases to be continued (see, in particular, the Tahsin Acar v.   Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) [GC], no.   26307/95, §§   75 ‑ 77, ECHR 2003-VI). The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the domestic authorities’ interference with religious meetings held on private premises (see, for example, Kuznetsov and Others v. Russia , no. 184/02, §§ 52-75, 11 January 2007, and Krupko and Others v.   Russia , no. 26587/07, §§ 47-57, 26 June 2014). Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declarations as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications (Article   37 §   1   (c)). Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, 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 applications (Article 37 § 1 in fine ). Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declarations, the applications 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 cases out of the list. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article   37 §   1   (c) of the Convention. Done in English and notified in writing on 24 September 2020.   Liv Tigerstedt   Ganna Yudkivska   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 1, Article 6 § 3 (b) and (c) and Article 9 of the Convention No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Date of birth   Date of receipt of Government’s declaration Amount awarded for pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage and for cost and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     9327/16 01/02/2016 Samir Ramazan oglu AGAYEV 1978 21/02/2020 4,400     9594/16 01/02/2016 Fakhraddin Nasraddin oglu KHANLAYEV 1967 21/02/2020 4,400     11071/16 05/02/2016 Nurullah Mustafa Oglu SUNGUR 1969 21/02/2020 4,400     11504/16 04/02/2016 Latif Yusif oglu RAHIMOV 1975 21/02/2020 4,400     11573/16 05/02/2016 Shenol Sedat Oglu MIKDAT 1968 21/02/2020 4,400     11601/16 04/02/2016 Sayavush Aladdin oglu BAKIROV 1974 21/02/2020 4,400     11604/16 04/02/2016 Zakariyya Isakh oglu MAMMADOV 1970 21/02/2020 4,400   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.