THIRD SECTION

CASE OF BAGIROV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

(Applications no. 34582/16 and 2 others

 – see appended list)

JUDGMENT
 

STRASBOURG

11 February 2025

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Bagirov and Others v. Azerbaijan,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

 Darian Pavli, President,
 Lətif Hüseynov,
 Úna Ní Raifeartaigh, judges,
and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the applications (nos. 34582/16, 58194/16 and 58199/16) 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”) by three Azerbaijani nationals, Taleh Bagirov (“the first applicant”), Zulfugar Mikayilov (“the second applicant”) and Elman Agayev (“the third applicant”), whose further details are listed in the appended table;

the decisions to give notice of the complaints concerning Articles 3 and 5 § 3 of the Convention (raised in all three applications) and Article 6 § 2 of the Convention (application no. 34582/16) to the Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Əsgərov, and to declare the remainder of the applications inadmissible;

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated in private on 21 January 2025,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1.  The case concerns complaints under Article 3 and Article 5 § 3 of the Convention on account of the applicants’ confinement in a metal cage in a courtroom and the duration of their pre-trial detention.

2.  On 26 November 2015 the first applicant, who is the leader of an unregistered religious movement, Müsəlman Birliyi (“the MB”), and the second applicant were arrested and later charged with several serious crimes. The third applicant was arrested and charged for the same reasons on 29 November 2015.

3.  On 26 November 2015 the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the General Prosecutor’s Office made a joint statement to the media in which the applicants were named as, inter alia, the founders of the MB, which had been “created in order to forcibly change the constitutional structure of the State and establish a religious State governed by Sharia law”. The statement also mentioned that the applicants had organised “a criminal group (cinayətkar dəstə) from among their supporters ... by equipping them with various types of firearms, ammunition [and] explosives”.

4.  On 27 November 2015, by decisions of the Nasimi District Court and the Narimanov District Court, respectively, the first and second applicants were detained for four and three months, respectively, pending their trials. The third applicant was detained on 30 November 2015 by a decision of the Nasimi District Court for four months. Subsequently, on various dates the first-instance courts extended those pre-trial detentions. In doing so, the courts used standard wording, merely repeating the grounds for detention which had been listed in their initial pre‑trial detention decisions.

5.  The applicants appealed against those decisions, arguing that the reasons given for the extension of their pre-trial detentions had not been sufficient and relevant. The first applicant also complained that the joint public statement (see paragraph 3 above) had been in breach of his presumption of innocence. However, the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance courts’ decisions. The appellate court did not address the first applicant’s complaint that his right to be presumed innocent had been breached.

6.  During the hearings in both the first-instance and appellate courts, the applicants were held in metal cages in the courtrooms.

7.  On various dates the applicants requested the Nasimi District Court to order their release on bail or, alternatively, place them under house arrest.

8.  By decisions of 11 May 2016, 17 March 2016 and 7 March 2016, respectively, the Nasimi District Court rejected the applicants’ requests. Those decisions were upheld by the Baku Court of Appeal.

9.  The applicants complained to the Court under Article 3 of the Convention that they had been subjected to degrading treatment because they had been held in a metal cage during the hearings at first-instance and in the appellate court concerning the extension of their pre-trial detention.

10.  Further, relying on, inter alia, Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the applicants complained that sufficient and relevant reasons had not been given for their continued pre-trial detention.

11.  In addition, the first applicant complained under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention that his right to be presumed innocent had been violated on account of the joint statement made by the authorities (see paragraph 3 above) to the media prior to his conviction.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

1. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

12.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

2. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION

13.  The applicants maintained their complaint (see paragraph 9 above).

14.  The Government argued that the first applicant had been accused of particularly violent crimes and, consequently, the security measure in question (namely the use of a metal cage) had not been excessive and had therefore not reached the threshold of degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3. They also alleged that the second and third applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies and that their complaint was manifestly ill‑founded.

15.  The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

16.  The general principles concerning confinement in a metal cage during court proceedings have been summarised in, among other authorities, Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia ([GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§ 113-39, ECHR 2014 (extracts)), and Natig Jafarov v. Azerbaijan (no. 64581/16, §§ 37-40, 7 November 2019).

17.  The Court has previously found that holding a person in a metal cage in a courtroom constitutes in itself – having regard to its objectively degrading nature, which is incompatible with the standards of civilised behaviour that are the hallmark of a democratic society – an affront to human dignity, and amounts to degrading treatment in violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev, cited above, §§ 122-39; Urazov v. Russia, no. 42147/05, §§ 82-83, 14 June 2016; and Vorontsov and Others v. Russia, nos. 59655/14 and 2 others, § 31, 31 January 2017).

18.  In view of the above, having regard to the objectively degrading nature of holding a person in a metal cage, the Court concludes that the applicants’ right to be free from degrading treatment was not respected (compare Natig Jafarov, cited above, § 40).

19.  There has accordingly been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

3. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW

20.  The applicants also raised a complaint concerning their continued pre‑trial detention (see paragraph 10 above), which is covered by the well‑established case-law of the Court. This complaint is not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other grounds. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that the complaint discloses a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention owing to the failure of the domestic courts to give relevant and sufficient reasons for the extension of the applicants’ pre-trial detention and the refusal to apply alternative measures, such as release on bail or house arrest (compare, among many other authorities, Allahverdiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 49192/08, §§ 51-63, 6 March 2014, and Mammadov and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 35432/07, §§ 95-100, 21 February 2019).

4. REMAINING COMPLAINTS

21.  In addition, the first applicant raised a complaint under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention (see paragraph 11 above) on account of the joint public statement made by the authorities (see paragraph 3 above). The Government considered that the complaint was inadmissible as it had been lodged out of six-months’ time-limit because the applicant had only raised the alleged breach of the presumption of innocence in the context of pre-trial detention proceedings which could not be considered an effective remedy in respect of this complaint.

22.  The Court notes the absence of information about the domestic legal instruments or examples of well-established case-law which could lead it to believe that the domestic courts called upon to decide on his pre-trial detention were also entitled to assess the joint public statement in question (compare, among other authorities, Narbutas v. Lithuania, no. 14139/21, §§ 211 and 213, 19 December 2023). In such circumstances, the Court is not persuaded that raising the present complaint before the domestic courts that examined the issue of the applicant’s pre-trial detention constituted an effective remedy against the impugned statement. Furthermore, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary submitted by either of the parties, the Court concludes that in the domestic legal system there was no effective remedy whatsoever in respect of a complaint under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention (contrast, among other authorities, Narbutas, cited above, §§ 214-15). Consequently, this complaint should have been lodged no later than six months after the statement in question was disseminated on 26 November 2015 (compare Pirali Orujov v. Azerbaijan, no. 8460/07, § 57, 3 February 2011).

23.  It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

24.  The first applicant claimed 15,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non‑pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 in respect of costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court.

25.  The second and third applicants each claimed EUR 20,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 4,335 in respect of costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court.

26.  The Government submitted that the claims were unsubstantiated and excessive.

27.  Ruling on an equitable basis, the Court awards each applicant EUR 3,900 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable.

28.  Having regard to the documents in its possession, the Court also considers it reasonable to award each applicant EUR 500 in respect of costs and expenses, namely, for the legal services provided by their representatives, Mr Javad Javadov, Mr Rustam Zulfugarov and Mr Akif Aliyev, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, to be paid into the bank account of the applicants’ representative, Mr Javad Javadov.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares the complaints concerning Article 3 and Article 5 § 3 of the Convention admissible and the remainder of the applications inadmissible;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention;
5. Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:

(i)  EUR 3,900 (three thousand nine hundred euros) to each applicant, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;

(ii)  EUR 500 (five hundred euros) to each applicant, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses, to be paid directly into their representative’s bank account;

(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

6. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 11 February 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Olga Chernishova Darian Pavli
 Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications