5.  The applicants’ dates of birth and places of residence are listed in the Appendix.
6.  On different dates between 2012 and 2016 (see Appendix) the applicants learned that their right to leave the country had been restricted and that they were no longer allowed to leave Azerbaijan.
7.  It appears from the documents in the case files that in all the cases the restriction in question was imposed by the investigating authorities, in the absence of any judicial decision, within the framework of various criminal proceedings in which the applicants were not convicted, accused or suspected persons, but were only questioned as witnesses.
8.  The travel bans imposed in respect of the applicants in applications nos. 62775/16 and 43327/16 were lifted by the investigating authorities on 29 January and 21 April 2016 respectively.
9.  On various dates the applicants brought an action claiming that the restriction imposed on them was unlawful, either by lodging a complaint with the administrative courts or applying to the ordinary courts for a review of the lawfulness of procedural actions or decisions by the prosecuting authorities under the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter “judicial review”). Some of the applicants used both of the above-mentioned remedies.
10.  The applicants claimed, in particular, that the domestic law did not provide for the imposition of travel bans on witnesses in criminal proceedings and that the restriction on their right to leave the country was not justified.
11.  In the domestic proceedings relating to all the applications, except application no. 66650/13, the domestic courts refused to examine the applicants’ complaint on the merits. Final decisions were adopted on various dates, by the Supreme Court in the administrative proceedings and the Baku Court of Appeal in the proceedings for judicial review (see Appendix). In their decisions, both the administrative and ordinary courts declared that they did not have competence to examine a complaint relating to the lawfulness of travel bans imposed by the investigating authorities.
12.  As regards the applicant in application no. 66650/13, by a decision dated 1 April 2013, a judge at the Sabail District Court dismissed his complaint after examining it on the merits. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows:
“Having assessed all the examined evidence, I conclude that the actions of the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Republic of Azerbaijan restricting the right of Mursaliyev Azad Oktay oglu to leave the country are lawful, that the procedure for judicial review as defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Azerbaijan does not provide for a [decision] on the payment of pecuniary or non-pecuniary damages, [and] that, for these reasons, the complaint should not be allowed.”
13.  On 5 April 2013 the applicant in application no. 66650/13 appealed against that decision, reiterating that there was no legal basis for restricting his right to leave the country under domestic law.
14.  On 12 April 2013 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the first-instance court’s decision justified. The appellate court repeated the reasoning provided by the first-instance court and made no mention of the complaint concerning the legal basis for the imposition of the travel ban.