FIRST SECTION
CASE OF BABALI AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
(Application no. 43164/10)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
 
 
 
 
STRASBOURG
24 October 2024
 
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Babali and Others v. Azerbaijan,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Raffaele Sabato, President,
 Lətif Hüseynov,
 Alain Chablais, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 43164/10) against the Republic of Azerbaijan lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 14 July 2010 by five Azerbaijani nationals (“the applicants”), whose relevant details are listed in the appended table and who were represented by Mr I. Aliyev and Ms N. Aliyeva, lawyers practising in Azerbaijan;
the decision to give notice of the application to the Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Əsgərov;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 3 October 2024,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case mainly concerns a refusal by a local executive authority to authorise a public assembly which the applicants intended to hold and their alleged lack of access to a court. 2. The applicants planned to hold an assembly on 28 September 2008 in Baku. On 16 September 2008 the applicants gave prior notice to the Baku City Executive Authority (“the BCEA”) about the assembly. They informed the BCEA of its date, time, place and purpose. According to the notice, the assembly was scheduled to take place from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. on 28 September 2008 at a stadium in the Bibiheybat settlement of Baku. 3. The applicants submitted that the assembly was intended to be peaceful, and its purpose was to protest against allegedly unfair court decisions concerning their ownership of shares in a private company. 4. By a letter of 25 September 2008 the BCEA refused to authorise the assembly, noting that it was “impractical” (məqsədəuyğun hesab edilmir), and advised the applicants “not to hold a protest but to apply to the appropriate authorities about the issues in question”. 5. It appears that the planned assembly was eventually not held. 6. On 24 November 2008 the applicants brought an action in the Sabail District Court against the BCEA, complaining that their right to freedom of assembly had been violated. By a judgment of 29 December 2008, the court dismissed the applicants’ complaint, accepting the BCEA’s findings, as indicated in its letter (see paragraph 4 above), as valid reasons for refusing to authorise the assembly. 7. The applicants appealed. By a judgment of 19 May 2009, the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants’ appeal and upheld the judgment of the Sabail District Court of 29 December 2008. 8. In order to lodge a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court the applicants were required by law to be represented by a lawyer (an advocate). On 13 July 2009 the applicants lodged a request with the Baku Court of Appeal, asking for State-funded legal assistance because they did not have sufficient means to hire a lawyer. By a decision of 5 August 2009, the Court of Appeal granted the applicants’ request for a State-funded lawyer. The applicants received that decision on 17 August 2009. 9. On an unspecified date in September 2009 a State-funded lawyer was appointed for the applicants by the Azerbaijani Bar Association. 10. On 29 September 2009 the applicants, represented by that lawyer, lodged a cassation appeal against the judgment of 19 May 2009. 11. The cassation appeal was lodged after the expiry of the two-month time-limit set forth in Article 405.0.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The applicants requested therefore that it be admitted for consideration on the merits, on the grounds that the State-funded lawyer had been appointed belatedly. 12. By a decision of 12 October 2009, the Baku Court of Appeal found that the cassation appeal was inadmissible because the above-mentioned procedural time-limit had expired (see paragraph 11 above). The appellate court calculated the time-limit as running from 6 June 2009, the date on which the applicants had received the judgment of 19 May 2009. The court, however, said nothing to the effect that the applicants’ request to be appointed a State-funded lawyer had been lodged belatedly or that the applicants had failed to demonstrate due diligence in lodging their request. 13. The applicants appealed against the decision of 12 October 2009. On 15 January 2010 the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal on the same grounds. 14. The applicants complained before the Court that by not admitting their cassation appeal for examination on the merits on account of non-compliance with the two-month time-limit, the domestic courts had violated their right of access to a court, in breach of Article 6 of the Convention. 15. They also complained that the refusal to authorise the assembly had been unlawful and not necessary in a democratic society, in breach of their right to freedom of assembly under Article 11 of the Convention. 16. Lastly, after the communication of the case the applicants’ representative, Mr Aliyev, introduced a new complaint on behalf of the applicants, arguing that the seizure from his office of the entire case file relating to the applicants’ pending case before the Court, together with all the other case files, had amounted to a hindrance to the exercise of the applicants’ right of individual petition under Article 34 of the Convention.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 6
Outcome: violation