THIRD SECTION
CASE OF NABIYEV AND JAFAROV v. AZERBAIJAN
(Applications nos. 3156/24 and 6477/24)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
22 January 2026
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Nabiyev and Jafarov v. Azerbaijan,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Diana Kovatcheva, President,
 Canòlic Mingorance Cairat,
 Vasilka Sancin, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 18 December 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Azerbaijan lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2. The applicants were represented by Ms Khayala Mammadova, a lawyer based in Azerbaijan. 3. The Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS
4. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 5. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention of the non-enforcement of domestic decisions. THE LAW
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
6. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
7. The applicants complained of the non-enforcement of domestic decisions given in their favour. They relied on Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. 8. The Court reiterates that the execution of a judgment given by any court must be regarded as an integral part of a “hearing” for the purposes of Article 6. It also refers to its case-law concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of final domestic judgments (see Hornsby v. Greece, no. 18357/91, § 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997‑II). 9. In the leading cases of Jafarli and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 36079/06, 29 July 2010; Faber Firm and Jafarov v. Azerbaijan, no. 3365/08, 25 November 2010; and Akhundov v. Azerbaijan, no. 39941/07, 3 February 2011, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 10. The Court further notes that the decisions in the present applications ordered specific action to be taken (see the appended table for details). The Court therefore considers that the decisions in question constitute “possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. 11. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the authorities did not deploy all necessary efforts to enforce fully and in due time the decisions in the applicants’ favour. 12.

Outcome for Article 6: violation