CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 août 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } Published on 16 September 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 12716/18 Akif GURBANOV against Azerbaijan lodged on 2 March 2018 communicated on 26 August 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns refusals by the Ministry of Justice to register a grant agreement. The applicant is a founder of the non-governmental organisation “the Institute of Democratic Initiatives” (founded on 5 November 2013 – “the NGO”), a civil society activist and a government critic. The NGO was not registered due to the authorities’ refusal to do so (the Court found a violation of Article 11 on this ground in its judgment Abdullayev and Others v. Azerbaijan, [Committee], nos. 69466/14 and 12 others, 20 May 2021). On 4 September 2014 the applicant signed a grant agreement in his own name with a donor (namely, the Embassy of the United States of America). The grant agreement in question was about awareness-raising about free and fair elections and was to be implemented in the framework of the Institute of Democratic Initiatives. The applicant applied to the Ministry of Justice to register the grant agreement but, by a letter of 18 September 2014, the Ministry refused to register the grant agreement, indicating certain deficiencies allegedly contained in the submitted documents and returned those documents to the applicant. The applicant’s second, third and fourth requests to register the grant agreement, following rectifications in compliance with the indications made by the Ministry each time, were refused by the Ministry in the same manner by its letters of 29 September, 17 October and 12 November 2014 respectively. The Ministry of Justice did not reply to the applicant’s fifth request submitted in November 2016. The applicant lodged a complaint against the Ministry of Justice arguing that its actions (or inaction) had been unlawful and asking the courts to order the Ministry to register the grant agreement. During the court proceedings the Ministry of Justice alleged that it had refused to grant the applicant’s fifth registration request by a letter of 5   December 2016. The Ministry argued that the refusal had been lawful because the grant agreement in question had expired, as its implementation had been intended within the period from 15 September 2014 to 15 September 2015. The courts dismissed the applicant’s complaint, finding nothing unlawful in the actions of the Ministry of Justice. Invoking Article 11 of the Convention, the applicant complains that, by failing to register the grant agreement, the domestic authorities breached his right to freedom of association. The applicant also complains under 13 of the Convention that his right to an effective remedy was breached because the domestic courts failed to address his arguments and grant his requests aimed at adducing evidence. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of association within the meaning of Article   11 §   1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   11 §   2?   2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 11, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?