issued by the Registrar of the Court

ECHR 152 (2018)

19.04.2018

Judgments and decisions of 19 April 2018

The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing seven judgments¹and 13

decisions²:

three Chamber judgments are summarised below; separate press releases have been issued for

three other Chamber judgments in the cases of Mammadli v. Azerbaijan (no. 47145/14), A.S.

v. France (no. 46240/15), and Ottan v. France (no. 41841/12);

one Committee judgment, concerning issues which have already been submitted to the Court, and

the 13 decisions, can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.

The judgments below are available only in English.

Hajibeyli and Aliyev v. Azerbaijan (applications nos. 6477/08 and 10414/08)

The applicants, Annagi Bahaduroglu Hajibeyli and Intigam Kamiloglu Aliyev, are Azerbaijani nationals

who were born in 1955 and 1962 and live in Baku and Absheron (Azerbaijan) respectively. They are

well-known civil society activists and human rights lawyers.

The case concerned their allegation that they had not been admitted to the Azerbaijani Bar

Association because they had publicly criticised the state of the legal profession in their country.

In 2005 the applicants applied for admission to the Bar under a new law which aimed at reforming

the legal profession. At the time they had been practising as lawyers for a number of years on the

basis of a special permit issued by the Ministry of Justice. As such, they were allowed under

transitional provisions of the new law to be admitted to the Bar without passing a qualification

examination, subject to their complying with the requirements to practise as legal counsel. However,

the Presidium of the Bar dismissed their applications. They brought proceedings before the domestic

courts in the following years, without success.

Relying in particular on Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human

Rights, the applicants alleged that they had been refused admission to the Bar on account of the

views they had expressed. In support of their claim, they had submitted extracts from meetings at

which the Bar had examined their applications and questioned them. Mr Aliyev, the second

applicant and also the legal representative in this case, complained on his own behalf and on behalf

of Mr Hajibeyli, the first applicant, that in 2014 the authorities had seized the entire case file on their

applications from his office only to return them two and half months later, in breach of Article 34

(right of individual petition) of the European Convention.

Violation of Article 10

Violation of Article 34

Just satisfaction: 7,000 euros (EUR) each to Mr Hajibeyli and Mr Aliyev for non-pecuniary damage,

and EUR 2,500 to Mr Hajibeyli for costs and expenses

Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a Chamber

judgment’s delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a

panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and

deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Under Article 28 of the

Convention, judgments delivered by a Committee are final.

Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.

Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution

Inadmissibility and strike-out decisions are final.

Just Satisfaction – Striking out

Werra Naturstein GmbH & Co KG v. Germany (no. 32377/12)

The case concerned the question of just satisfaction with regard to the applicant company’s

complaint about inadequate compensation when it had had to stop quarrying limestone due to the

construction of a motorway.

In its principal judgment of 19 January 2017 the Court held that there had been a violation of

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention.

Today’s judgment concerned the question of just satisfaction (Article 41 of the Convention).

In today’s judgment, the Court, taking note of the terms of the German Government’s declaration

and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein, held that

Germany was to pay the applicant company EUR 1,000,000 in respect of pecuniary and non-

pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses. It further decided to strike the application out of its

list of cases in so far as the procedure under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention was

concerned.

Dimitras v. Greece (no. 11946/11)

The applicant, Panayotis Dimitras, is a Greek national who was born in 1953 and lives in Glyka Nera

(Greece).

The case concerned his complaint that his criminal action for slander against a Government official

had never been heard as the official had received immunity after being elected to Parliament,

there had been delays caused by the domestic authorities and the offence eventually had

become time-barred.

On 1 June 2007 Mr Dimitras lodged a criminal complaint for slander against E.T., the General

Secretary of a Government Ministry. He accused E.T. of making false statements to the press about

the Greek Helsinki Monitor, a non-governmental organisation of which he is the executive director.

However, while the case was still pending, E.T. was elected a Member of Parliament and the court

suspended the proceedings until Parliament granted leave to continue the prosecution. In October

2010, about one month after the offence had become time-barred (on 4 September 2010),

Parliament ruled that E.T.’s immunity should not be lifted and dismissed the request for leave to

continue the criminal proceedings. When E.T.’s parliamentary term came to an end, the case was

nonetheless considered by the domestic court, which held on 26 October 2012 that the offence had

become time-barred, and ended the criminal prosecution.

Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (access to court), Mr Dimitras argued that the authorities had

knowingly let the statute of limitations expire, resulting in the offence becoming time-barred and a

breach of his right of access to court. Further relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a

reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he also complained that the length of

the proceedings – more than five years – had been excessive and that there had been no effective

remedy in Greece for him to bring a complaint about that.

No violation of Article 6 § 1 (access to court)

Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length of proceedings)

Violation of Article 13

Just satisfaction: EUR 3,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 600 (costs and expenses)

This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,

judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive

the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter

@ECHR_Press.

Press contacts

echrpress@echr.coe.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08

Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)

Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)

Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)

Patrick Lannin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 44 18)

Somi Nikol (tel: + 33 3 90 21 64 25)

The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member

States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.