CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 février 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } Published on 16 March 2026   THIRD SECTION Application no. 37497/19 Rasul JAFAROV against Azerbaijan lodged on 9 July 2019 communicated on 27 February 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application primarily concerns alleged conviction and punishment without law and alleged violation of the right to fair trial within reasonable time. At the material time the applicant was a civil society activist, and founder and chairperson of unregistered non-governmental organisation (“NGO”) called the Human Rights Club (see Jafarov and Others v. Azerbaijan , no.   27309/14, 25 July 2019). In the period of June 2010 – December 2013, the applicant received several grants from various foreign donor organisations for his NGO activity. As the Human Rights Club was not registered, the grant sums were transferred to bank accounts which were in the applicant’s name. In July 2014 the Auditing Department of the Ministry of Taxes (“the Department”) decided to conduct tax revision in respect of the applicant. In August 2014 a criminal case was instituted against the applicant. He was charged with criminal offences under Articles 192.2.2 (illegal entrepreneurship), 213.1 (large-scale tax evasion) and 308.2 (abuse of power) of the Criminal Code. Then the applicant was formally arrested as a suspect and taken into pre-trial detention for three months (that pre-trial detention was the subject of the Court’s examination in Rasul Jafarov v. Azerbaijan , no.   69981/14, 17 March 2016). Later he was also charged under Articles   179.3.2 (high-level embezzlement) and 313 (forgery by an official) of the Criminal Code. In September 2014 the Department informed the applicant that he had breached provisions of the Tax Code by not paying taxes on the above ‑ mentioned grants (the Department calculated that the applicant had evaded taxes in the sum of 4,556.08 Azerbaijani manats (AZN)). On 17   October 2014 the Department adopted a decision to sanction the applicant by imposing fines in the sums of AZN 40 and AZN 2,277.86. In November 2014 the applicant brought proceedings against the Ministry of Taxes and its Department contesting the decision of 17 October 2014. In March 2015 Baku Administrative-Economic Court no. 1 suspended the proceedings until adoption of a judgment in the above-mentioned criminal proceedings against the applicant. The applicant attempted to challenge before the higher court the ruling ordering the suspension. However, these attempts were unsuccessful. On 16 April 2015 the applicant was convicted as charged. However, on 31   July 2015 the appellate court changed this judgment by exempting the applicant from criminal liability under Article 213.1 (large-scale tax evasion) of the Criminal Code. According to the applicant, this change was due to the fact that he, with the assistance of his relatives, had paid the alleged tax and the related tax sanctions (fines). On 16 February 2016 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the appellate court. On 10 December 2015 Baku Administrative-Economic Court no.   1 resumed the above-mentioned proceedings. On 13 February 2017 Baku Administrative-Economic Court no. 1 declared inadmissible the applicant’s complaint against the Ministry of Taxes and its Department. However, after a series of appeals the inadmissibility decision was quashed and the Baku Administrative ‑ Economic Court no. 1 resumed the examination of the case. According to the applicant, those proceedings were again suspended in 2018, and they were not finalised at the time when he introduced the present application, despite his request for the examination of the case to be resumed and completed. The applicant complains under Article 6 §   1 of the Convention that his right to court and right to fair trial within reasonable time were violated because the domestic courts failed to adopt a decision in respect of his complaint about unlawfulness of the tax and tax sanctions imposed on him. He alleges that the proceedings were “criminal” in nature and that they were prolonged without any valid reasons. The applicant complains under Article 7 of the Convention that the acts or omissions for which he was sanctioned by the Ministry of Taxes – in particular, the fact that the grants the applicant had received were not registered, and that he did not pay taxes on those grants – did not constitute an offence under the national law. The applicant further complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that he was forced to pay the alleged tax and the related tax sanctions (fines), which constituted an unlawful interference with his property rights. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was Article   6 §   1 of the Convention under its criminal head applicable to the proceedings in which the applicant contested the decision of the Auditing Department of the Ministry of Taxes of 17 October 2014? If so, was the length of the court proceedings in that case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?   2.     Did the acts or omissions of which the applicant was convicted (by being subjected to the tax related sanctions) constitute a criminal offence under national law at the time when they were committed, as envisaged by Article   7 of the Convention?   3.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties?   The parties are requested to provide documentary evidence in support of their replies and submissions, including copies of the judgments and decisions of the domestic courts, transcripts of the court hearings and the applicant’s appeals and requests.