003-7274409-9909068

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 072 (2022)   03.03.2022   Freezing of assets in Malta following request by the Kazakh authorities   In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case of Shorazova v. Malta (application no. 51853/19) the   European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:   a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on   Human Rights, and   no violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention regarding the length of the   constitutional redress proceedings.   Ms Shorazova was born in Kazakhstan and at the relevant time was married to Rakhat Aliyev, who   had previously been married to the daughter of the then president of Kazakhstan, Nursultan   Nazarbayev and later became his political adversary. The case concerned the freezing of the   applicant’s assets in Malta at the request of the Kazakh authorities. She was facing charges in   Kazakhstan for multiple serious crimes at that time.   The Court considered that in the present case there were sufficient grounds to question the genuine   nature of the actions undertaken by Kazakhstan and thus the general interest behind the measure. It   then found that in the procedure before the Criminal Court by which the freezing order had been   issued and repeatedly extended in the applicant’s case, the applicant had been deprived of relevant   procedural safeguards against an arbitrary or disproportionate interference for nearly eight years.   However, as concerned the constitutional proceedings which she had lodged to complain of a breach   of her rights, the Court considered their length not to have been excessive in the circumstances.   Principal facts   The applicant, Elnara Shorazova, is an Austrian national who was born in 1976 and lives in Vienna.   Ms Shorazova is the widow of Rakhat Aliyev. The latter had previously been married to the daughter   of Nursultan Nazarbayev, who was president of Kazakhstan from 1991 until 2019. As well as being   appointed to other Government posts, in 2002 Mr Aliyev became ambassador to Austria, before   returning in 2005 to Kazakhstan as vice-minister of Foreign Affairs. He was spoken about as a   candidate to replace Mr Nazarbayev as president. In the mid-2000s political tensions arose between   the two men. A warrant was ultimately issued for Mr Aliyev’s arrest   Mr Aliyev married the applicant in 2009 and they resided in Malta until 2013. He died in prison in   Austria in 2015.   In 2008 and 2009 following two trials in absentia Mr Aliyev was convicted in Kazakhstan of among   other things political offences and sentenced in both to a 20-year prison sentence.   In 2007 a first extradition request for Mr Aliyev was received by Austria and denied on the grounds   that he would not receive treatment in accordance with the European Convention. In 2011 a second   extradition request was also rejected, noting Mr Aliyev’s conviction in absentia and that it had been   possibly a political trial.   1. Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its 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.   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.   In subsequent years a series of investigations were undertaken and freezing orders on the couple’s   property issued, following requests by the Kazakh authorities, in Germany, Cyprus, Liechtenstein and   Greece. However, they were all discontinued and lifted respectively.   In 2013 the Maltese authorities received a request for legal assistance in relation to Mr Aliyev and   the applicant, asking for several witnesses to be questioned and evidence to be collected. Ms   Shorazova and Mr Aliyev were not informed of this procedural step.   Again following a request by the Kazakh authorities, in 2014 the Maltese authorities issued a   freezing order in respect of the couple’s assets in Malta, which was still in effect at the time of the   lodging of the application with the Court, as it had been repeatedly extended by the Criminal Court   every six months.   In June 2014 the couple instituted constitutional redress proceedings under Article 6 of the   Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, alleging that they had no guarantee of respect for their   rights in Kazakhstan and thus Malta should not cooperate with the requests for legal assistance,   asking for the termination of all proceedings in Malta. In April 2019 the Constitutional Court,   confirming the first-instance judgment, upheld their claims in part in relation to Article 6, but   rejected the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, considering that the freezing order was only   a temporary measure which was lawful, in the general interest and proportionate to the aim   pursued.   Following the notification of this application to the Government, on 23 July 2021 the Criminal Court   lifted the freezing order, holding that as no criminal proceedings had been ongoing against Ms   Shorazova in Kazakhstan, the order was not warranted under Maltese law.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Articles 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the   applicant complained that the Maltese State should not have complied with the request for legal   assistance not issued the freezing order requested by the Kazakhstan authorities as the regime there   could not offer any guarantees of a fair trial. She also complained that the constitutional   proceedings, she had instituted to complain of the breach of her rights, had been overly long.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 1 October 2019.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Péter Paczolay (Hungary), President,   Krzysztof Wojtyczek (Poland),   Alena Poláčková (Slovakia),   Erik Wennerström (Sweden),   Lorraine Schembri Orland (Malta),   Ioannis Ktistakis (Greece),   Davor Derenčinović (Croatia),   and also Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6 § 1 concerning the ordinary proceedings   The Court ruled that the freezing order had been an interference with the applicant’s property   rights.   While the Court could not take the place of the domestic authorities to rule on the lawfulness of the   measure, it considered it disconcerting that over a period of nearly eight years the legality of the   matter and the applicant’s situation had not been examined thoroughly by the domestic courts. This   indicated a serious problem at the domestic level.   The Court considered that there had been sufficient evidence indicating that the proceedings in   Kazakhstan may have had a political motive, Thus, whether there had been a general interest   behind the freezing order which had been put and kept in place by the Maltese authorities in the   specific circumstances of the present case was something which deserved particular evaluation by   the domestic courts. The Court stressed the importance of mutual legal assistance under the United   Nations Convention, considering however that this should be carried out in compliance with   international human-rights standards.   Furthermore, the Court – noting that the applicant had not been charged in any European country   despite multiple investigations and in view of the situation in Kazakhstan in relation to any criminal   proceedings which could be pursued there against the applicant – doubted whether the fight against   crime had been the general interest pursued in this case.   Concerning the freezing order itself, the Court found it to have been a harsh and restrictive measure   – it concerned the entirety of the applicant’s property in Malta and no domestic court had made an   assessment concerning its extent in relation to the “charges” neither at the time it had been issued   nor in subsequent renewals. Nor had there been any assessment as to whether it would have been   legitimate and proportionate to apply such a measure, given the circumstances of the case. The   Court also noted that the extensions of the order had been automatic, without the applicant being   given a hearing.   Ultimately, it had not been until notification of the complaint to the Government by the Court that   the Criminal Court had intervened and the order had been lifted.   Overall, the Court found that the procedures for issuing and extending the freezing order had not   allowed the applicant to protect herself against arbitrariness, and that the courts of constitutional   competence had not fixed that deficiency.   There had thus been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.   Given those findings, the Court considered that it was not necessary to examine the ordinary   proceedings in the light of Article 6 § 1.   Article 6 § 1 concerning the length of the constitutional proceedings   The constitutional proceedings as a whole had lasted almost four years and ten months over two   levels of jurisdiction. The Government asserted that the case had been complex, with voluminous   evidence, and the legal questions novel. The courts had acted with diligence. Furthermore, they   stated that the requirements in terms of expedition were not the same for the Constitutional Court   as for the ordinary courts.   The Court found that there had been no periods of inactivity or deficient conduct on the part of the   authorities. It noted in particular the lack of argument from the applicant. Overall, it considered the   length of the proceedings, although long, not to have been excessive in the circumstances.   There had been no violation of the Convention with regard to the length of the constitutional   proceedings.   Just satisfaction (Article 41)   The Court held that Malta was to pay the applicant 2,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary   damage and EUR 586 in respect of costs and expenses.   The judgment is available only in English.   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_CEDH.   Press contacts   [email protected] | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Neil Connolly (tel : + 33 3 90 21 48 05)   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)   Jane Swift (tel : + 33 3 88 41 29 04)   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.   4