THIRD SECTION
CASE OF MUKHTARLI AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
(Applications nos. 31340/13 and 32437/13)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
9 October 2025
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Mukhtarli and Others v. Azerbaijan,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Úna Ní Raifeartaigh, President,
 Mateja Đurović,
 Vasilka Sancin, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 18 September 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 Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS
3. The list of the applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4. The applicants complained under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention of the unlawfulness of their detention. They also raised complaints under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention concerning the lack of effective review of the lawfulness of their detention. In application no. 31340/13, the applicant in addition complained under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the conditions of his detention at a police station. THE LAW
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. STRIKING OUT OF THE COMPLAINTS LODGED BY MS KAMILA ASLANOVA (APPLICATION NO. 32437/13)
6. The representative of Ms Kamila Aslanova, one of the applicants in application no. 32437/13, informed the Court that the applicant wished to withdraw her application without providing any specific reason. 7. In the light of the foregoing and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention and the Protocols thereto, the Court, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, decides to strike application no. 32437/13 out of its list in so far as it concerns Ms Kamila Aslanova.
the government’s preliminary objections concerning the applicants’ representation before the Court
8. In their observations, the Government argued that, in both applications, the signatures on the applicants’ observations and their claims for just satisfaction, which included contracts for legal services signed between the applicants and the representatives, belonged neither to the applicants nor to representatives Mr F. Namazli and Mrs Z. Sadigova, and had, in fact, been “forged” by Mr R. Hajili. The applicants and representatives Mr F. Namazli and Mrs Z. Sadigova refuted the Government’s submissions and maintained that they had been aware of the submissions to the Court made by Mr R. Hajili and had signed the relevant documents themselves. 9. Having examined all the material submitted to it by both parties and having had regard to its reasoning in respect of a similar objection raised by the Government in another case (compare, mutatis mutandis, Shenturk and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 41326/17 and 3 others, §§ 86-91, 10 March 2022), the Court dismisses the objection raised by the Government. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 1 of the Convention
10. Relying on Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, the applicants complained that their right to liberty had been infringed as they had been unlawfully detained by police officers based on an unjustified suspicion of having committed an administrative offence. 11. The Court reiterates that Article 5 of the Convention is, together with Articles 2, 3 and 4, in the first rank of the fundamental rights that protect the physical security of the individual, and as such its importance is paramount. Its key purpose is to prevent arbitrary or unjustified deprivations of liberty (see Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, § 84, ECHR 2016 (extracts), with further references). 12. Where the “lawfulness” of detention is in issue, including the question whether “a procedure prescribed by law” has been followed, the Convention refers essentially to national law and lays down the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules thereof. Compliance with national law is not, however, sufficient: Article 5 § 1 requires in addition that any deprivation of liberty should be in keeping with the purpose of protecting the individual from arbitrariness (see S. V. and A. v. Denmark [GC], nos. 35553/12 and 2 others, § 74, 22 October 2018, with further references). 13. In the leading cases of Nagiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 16499/09, 23 April 2015; Nasirov and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 58717/10, 20 February 2020; and Mammadov and Abbasov v. Azerbaijan, no. 1172/12, 8 July 2021, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present applications. 14. 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 this complaint. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicants’ deprivation of liberty was unlawful. 15. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 4 OF THE CONVENTION
16. The applicants also complained under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention concerning the lack of effective review of the lawfulness of their detention. 17. In view of the above findings (see paragraphs 14-15 above), the Court considers that there is no need to examine separately the admissibility and merits of this complaint (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014). REMAINING COMPLAINT
18. Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant in application no. 31340/13 also complained of the alleged inadequate conditions of detention during his custody at the police station. 19. The Court considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, this complaint either does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. 20. It follows that this complaint must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
21. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.

Outcome for Article 5: violation