FIRST SECTION
CASE OF IBRAHIMOV v. AZERBAIJAN
(Application no. 62271/16)
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
26 September 2024
 
 
 
 
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Ibrahimov v. Azerbaijan,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Krzysztof Wojtyczek, President,
 Lətif Hüseynov,
 Erik Wennerström, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 62271/16) 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 12 October 2016 by an Azerbaijani national, Mr Ikhtiyar Boyukkhan oglu Ibrahimov (“the applicant”), who was born in 1958, lives in Baku and was represented by Mr T. Khanaliyev, a lawyer practising in Baku;
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 5 September 2024,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns a complaint under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention about the alleged failure by the authorities to duly summon the applicant to attend a Supreme Court hearing in criminal proceedings against him. 2. By a judgment of 28 April 2014, the Baku Court of Serious Crimes sentenced the applicant to nine years’ imprisonment for fraud with aggravating circumstances, under Article 178.3.2 of the Criminal Code. 3. On 7 July 2014 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s judgment. Subsequently, the applicant lodged a cassation appeal. He did so without any legal assistance while he was serving his sentence at a penitentiary facility. In his cassation appeal, he argued that his conviction had been unfair. 4. The Supreme Court hearing was scheduled for 19 April 2016 and on 28 March 2016 the registry of the court sent the relevant notice to the penitentiary facility. On 6 April 2016 the penitentiary facility’s officer G.S. signed a record confirming that he had received the notice. 5. On 19 April 2016 the Supreme Court hearing took place as scheduled. A representative of the prosecution and one of the aggrieved persons participated in it, while the applicant was absent. In the minutes of the hearing it was indicated that despite being duly notified, the applicant had not requested to participate in the hearing. 6. Eventually, the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Baku Court of Appeal. 7. In reply to a request of 29 August 2016 made by the applicant’s representative Mr T. Khanaliyev, the chief of the penitentiary facility indicated that by a letter of 15 June 2016 the Supreme Court had been informed about a delivery to the applicant of the above-mentioned notice (see paragraph 5 above). 8. The applicant complained before the Court that his right to a fair trial guaranteed under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention had been breached, as he had not been informed of the hearing of his cassation appeal on 19 April 2016 before the Supreme Court and that therefore he had not been able to be present at that hearing.

Outcome for Article 6: violation