FIFTH SECTION
 
CASE OF MAMMADOV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
(Application no. 52158/13 and 2 others - see appended list)
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
4 June 2020
 
 
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Mammadov and Others v. Azerbaijan,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, President,
 Mārtiņš Mits,
 Lәtif Hüseynov, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 14 May 2020,
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 various lawyers (see the appended table). 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 5 § 3 of the Convention of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention. The applicant in application no. 52158/13 also raised a complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. 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 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION
7. The applicants complained principally that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be ... entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.”
8. The Court observes that the general principles regarding the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial, as guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, have been stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000‑XI, and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2006‑X, with further references). 9. In the leading cases of Farhad Aliyev v. Azerbaijan (no. 37138/06, 9 November 2010), Isayeva v. Azerbaijan (no. 36229/11, 25 June 2015) and Zayidov v. Azerbaijan (no. 11948/08, 20 February 2014), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present cases. 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 cases the length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention was excessive. 11. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 4 OF THE CONVENTION
12. The applicant in application no. 52158/13 also complained that the domestic courts had failed to address his specific arguments in support of his release in breach of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“...Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.”
13. The Court notes that this part of application no. 52158/13 is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. 14. The claims made by the applicant are similar to those made by the applicant in the case of Aliyev v. Azerbaijan (nos. 68762/14 and 71200/14, §§ 167-169, 20 September 2018). 15. Having regard to the facts of the present case and the clear similarity between these facts and those of Aliyev (cited above) on all relevant and crucial points, the Court sees no particular circumstances that could compel it to deviate from its findings in that judgment. 16. Accordingly, the applicant in application no. 52158/13 was not afforded proper judicial review of the lawfulness of his detention under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.

Outcome for Article 5: violation