FIRST SECTION
CASE OF INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH AND EXCHANGE BOARD v. AZERBAIJAN
(Application no. 7668/15)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
2 March 2023
 
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of International Research and Exchange Board v. Azerbaijan,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Krzysztof Wojtyczek, President,
 Lətif Hüseynov,
 Ivana Jelić, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 7668/15) 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 30 December 2014 by a representative office of an international organisation, International Research and Exchanges Board (IREX – “the applicant organisation”), registered in 1998 and based in Baku, which was represented before the Court by Mr E.A. Sadigov, a lawyer practising in Baku;
the decision to give notice to the Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Əsgərov, of the complaints under Articles 6, 8 and 18 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning an order for search and seizure and an order to freeze the applicant organisation’s bank accounts, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 7 February 2023,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The applicant organisation is the representative office in Azerbaijan of the International Research and Exchanges Board, an international humanitarian organisation. The application concerns the search of its office and the seizure of documents and electronic devices by the national authorities, as well as the order to freeze its bank accounts in the framework of criminal proceedings initiated against several local non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and representative offices of international organisations. 2. On 22 April 2014 the Prosecutor General’s Office opened criminal case no. 142006023 under Article 308.1 (abuse of power) and Article 313 (forgery by an official) of the Criminal Code in connection with alleged irregularities in the financial activities of a number of NGOs (see Democracy and Human Rights Resource Centre and Mustafayev v. Azerbaijan, nos. 74288/14 and 64568/16, § 6, 14 October 2021). The applicant organisation was mentioned in the decision of 22 April 2014, but never had the status of a “suspect” in the investigation. Freezing of the applicant organisation’s bank accounts
3. Soon thereafter the bank accounts of numerous NGOs and civil society activists were frozen by the domestic authorities within the framework of criminal case no. 142006023 (ibid., § 7). Accordingly, on 26 July 2014 the Nasimi District Court issued an attachment order in respect of all bank accounts of the applicant organisation pending the outcome of the investigation in criminal case no. 142006023. The court relied on the need “to carry out a complete, comprehensive and objective investigation” in that case. According to the order, it was amenable to appeal within three days after it was issued. 4. The applicant organisation submitted that the court hearing on 26 July 2014 had been held in the absence of the applicant organisation’s representative due to a lack of notification. No copy of the order was sent to the applicant organisation. Because 27 July 2014 was a Sunday and 28 and 29 July 2014 were public holidays (on the occasion of Ramadan), the bank informed it of the freezing of its accounts only on 30 July 2014. On 31 July 2014 the applicant organisation obtained a copy of the attachment order from the court, and it lodged an appeal against the order the next day. It also requested the court to restore the time-limit for lodging the appeal. 5. On 7 August 2014 the Nasimi District Court dismissed the applicant organisation’s request to restore the time-limit for lodging its appeal. The court noted that the applicant organisation had failed to provide any valid reasons for having missed the above-mentioned time-limit. On 18 August 2014 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld that decision. 6. The attachment order in respect of the applicant organisation’s bank accounts was lifted on 10 July 2020. Search of the applicant organisation’s office and seizure of its assets
7. On 4 September 2014 the Yasamal District Court authorised the investigating authorities to search the applicant organisation’s office and to seize legal, financial, accounting and bank documents relating to the applicant organisation’s activities and its receipt of grants and other financial aid, including documents found on electronic devices. The court referred to the need to ensure a complete, comprehensive and objective investigation in criminal case no. 142006023. 8. On 5 September 2014 the search was carried out. The investigating authorities seized twelve laptops, six computer system units, eight video cameras, two photo cameras, one mobile phone, forty-one CDs and DVDs, one hard drive, fifteen flash drives, one audio cassette and thirty-five boxes of documents. 9. On 24 September 2014 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the Yasamal District Court’s search warrant of 4 September 2014 on appeal, endorsing its reasoning. 10. After expert examinations had been carried out, the seized items were returned to the applicant organisation on 13 November 2015. According to the applicant organisation, the computers had not been returned in working condition.
complaints
11. The applicant organisation complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the freezing of its bank accounts. It further complained under Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the search and seizure at its office. The applicant organisation also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about retention of their computers for about a year and their return in allegedly unusable condition. Finally, it complained that the restrictions imposed by the State in the present case were applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by the relevant provisions, contrary to Article 18 of the Convention.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 1
Outcome: violation