CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 avril 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 } Published on 27 April 2026   THIRD SECTION Application no. 6854/20 Ilgar ALIYEV against Azerbaijan lodged on 27 January 2020 communicated on 7 April 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings against several employees of the former Ministry of National Security and lodged a civil claim within those proceedings against four of the accused, seeking the return of the money extorted from him. On 23 April 2018 the Baku Military Court found the accused, including those against whom the applicant had lodged his civil claim, guilty under several provisions of the Criminal Code. It awarded pecuniary damage to a number of victims and ordered the confiscation of various properties belonging to the accused and their family members. Although the court found that the four accused persons and others, acting within an organised group, had extorted money from the applicant, it nevertheless decided to leave his civil claim unexamined, holding that the criminal prosecution of other members of the organised group was ongoing. It also noted that the applicant could later initiate separate civil proceedings in respect of his claim. The applicant appealed, arguing that the first-instance court’s decision was contrary to the provisions of domestic law. In particular, he complained that the fact that the criminal prosecution of other members of the organised group was ongoing could not serve as a basis for leaving his claim unexamined. He further argued that any future claim lodged in separate civil proceedings would be ineffective, as the properties belonging to the accused had already been confiscated and the applicable legislation and domestic case-law did not provide for such claims to be directed against the confiscated property. On 8 February and 1 August 2019 the Baku Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, respectively, dismissed the applicant’s appeals. Relying on Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant complains that his right of property was violated and that he did not have an effective domestic remedy in respect of his complaint. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in view of the domestic courts’ decision in the criminal proceedings to leave the applicant’s civil claim unexamined?   2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? If so, has he exhausted that remedy, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? The Government are invited to refer to specific provisions of domestic law and to provide relevant examples from the case-law of the domestic courts in this respect.