FIRST SECTION
CASE OF ELECTION MONITORING AND DEMOCRACY EDUCATION CENTRE AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
(Application no. 70981/11)
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
 
 
 
 
STRASBOURG
12 January 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Election Monitoring and Democracy Education Centre and Others 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. 70981/11) 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 4 November 2011 by an applicant association and two individual applicants whose details are listed in the appended table (“the applicants”) and who were represented by Mr I. Aliyev, a lawyer based in Azerbaijan;
the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning Articles 11 and 34 of the Convention to the Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Əsgərov, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 6 December 2022,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The present application concerns the refusal by the domestic authorities to register the applicant association established by the two individual applicants. 2. In 2008 the two individual applicants (the second and third applicants, see appended list) established the applicant association, a non-governmental organisation called Election Monitoring and Democracy Education Centre (Seçkilərin Monitorinqi və Demokratiyanın Tədrisi Mərkəzi). They requested the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Azerbaijan (“the Ministry”) to register their association as a legal entity and submitted relevant documents. 3. On 12 March 2009 the Ministry extended by thirty days the time-limit for examination of the documents submitted. 4. In a letter of 29 April 2009 addressed to the second applicant, the Ministry indicated the following alleged deficiencies and returned those documents:
(a)  in accordance with Article 5.4 of the Law on State registration and the State register of legal entities (“the Law on State Registration”), a decision to establish the applicant association and adopt its charter should have been submitted, instead of a record of the meeting of the founders at which that decision was taken; and
(b)  in section 1.4 of the charter, the title of the Law on Non-Governmental Organisations (Public Associations and Funds) (“the Law on NGOs”) was written incorrectly. 5. Having received the above-mentioned letter, the second and third applicants lodged a complaint against the Ministry with the Yasamal District Court. They argued that the Ministry’s allegations were false and unlawful because they had, in fact, submitted the decision establishing the association and adopting its charter – namely the document entitled “Decision” and subtitled “Extract from the record”. 6. They also argued that there had been no valid “exceptional” reason, as required by Article 8.2 of the Law on State Registration, to extend the time‑limit for examination of the documents submitted. 7. On 2 September 2009 the first-instance court dismissed the complaint, finding nothing unlawful in the Ministry’s actions. The Baku Court of Appeal upheld that judgment on 17 December 2009. However, on 13 August 2010 the Supreme Court quashed the lower courts’ judgments and remitted the case to the appellate court for re-examination. 8. On 3 December 2010 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the complaint, finding that the Ministry had acted lawfully, both by extending the time-limit for examination of the documents and by refusing to register the applicant association. Regarding the refusal, the appellate court emphasised that the first finding made by the Ministry as to alleged deficiencies (summarised in paragraph 4 (a) above) had been lawful. On 20 April 2011 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment, largely reiterating the appellate court’s findings (the Supreme Court’s decision was sent to the applicants on 6 May 2011). 9. In August 2014 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicants’ representative, Mr Aliyev. The investigating authorities seized many documents from his office, including the case file relating to the present application. 10. The applicants complained before the Court that the Ministry’s actions had violated their right to freedom of association. 11. They also complained that the seizure of their case file from the office of their lawyer had been in breach of Article 34 of the Convention.

Outcome for Article 11: violation