issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 010 (2022)
13.01.2022
Judgments and decisions of 13 January 2022
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 39 judgments1 and 110 decisions2:
four Chamber judgments are summarised below;
35 Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been examined by the Court, and
The judgment in French is indicated with an asterisk (*).
Hashemi v. Azerbaijan (application nos. 1480/16, 3936/16, 15835/16,
28034/16, 34491/16, 51348/16 and 15904/17)*
The applicants are eight Afghan and Pakistani nationals. They fled Afghanistan and Pakistan during
the 2000s and settled in Azerbaijan, where they registered with the Office of the UN High
Commissioner for Refugees, which issued them with a letter of protection.
The applicants in this case complain about the national authorities’ refusal to issue identity cards to
their children, who were born in Azerbaijan, and to acknowledge them as Azerbaijani citizens.
Before the national courts, the applicants argued that, in application of the principle of ius soli, as
enshrined in the Azerbaijani legislation in force prior to 30 May 2014, their children, who had been
born before that date, were Azerbaijani citizens. They alleged that the domestic authorities’ refusal
to issue them with identity papers was illegal. On various dates the applicants’ requests were all
rejected by the domestic courts, which held that their children could not be considered to be
Azerbaijani citizens, given that their parents held another nationality, namely that of Afghanistan or
Pakistan.
The applicants rely on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European
Convention on Human Rights.
Violation of Article 8
Just satisfaction:
non-pecuniary damage: 2,100 (euros) EUR to each applicant
Tabak v. Croatia (no. 24315/13)
The applicant, Ivan Tabak, is a Croatian national who was born in 1956 and lives in Ferdinandovac
(Croatia).
In 1995 the applicant was involved in a road traffic accident, injuring his knee. The case concerns the
proceedings he brought against the insurance company seeking damages.
1
Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a 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.
2
Inadmissibility and strike-out decisions are final.
