THIRD SECTION
CASE OF BADALOV v. AZERBAIJAN
(Application no. 18295/23)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
22 January 2026
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Badalov 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 an application against Azerbaijan lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 12 April 2023. 2. The applicant was represented by Mr N. Karimli, a lawyer based in Azerbaijan. 3. The Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS
4. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 5. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning the non‑enforcement of domestic decision. THE LAW
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
6. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant complained of the non-enforcement of domestic decision given in his favour. 7. 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). 8. 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. 9. The Court further notes that the decision in the present application ordered specific action to be taken (see the appended table for details). The Court therefore considers that the decision in question constitutes “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. 10. 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 decision in the applicant’s favour. 11.

Outcome for Article 6: violation