18295/23

THIRD SECTION CASE OF BADALOV v. AZERBAIJAN (Application no. 18295/23)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 22 January 2026   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Badalov v. Azerbaijan, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Diana Kovatcheva, President,  Canòlic Mingorance Cairat,  Vasilka Sancin, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 18 December 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.  The case originated in an application against Azerbaijan lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 12 April 2023. 2.  The applicant was represented by Mr N. Karimli, a lawyer based in Azerbaijan. 3.  The Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS 4.  The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 5.  The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning the non‑enforcement of domestic decision. THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION AND OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 6.  Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant complained of the non-enforcement of domestic decision given in his favour. 7.  The Court reiterates that the execution of a judgment given by any court must be regarded as an integral part of a “hearing” for the purposes of Article 6. It also refers to its case-law concerning the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of final domestic judgments (see Hornsby v. Greece, no. 18357/91, § 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997‑II). 8.  In the leading cases of Jafarli and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 36079/06, 29 July 2010; Faber Firm and Jafarov v. Azerbaijan, no. 3365/08, 25 November 2010; and Akhundov v. Azerbaijan, no. 39941/07, 3 February 2011, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 9.  The Court further notes that the decision in the present application ordered specific action to be taken (see the appended table for details). The Court therefore considers that the decision in question constitutes “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. 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 case the authorities did not deploy all necessary efforts to enforce fully and in due time the decision in the applicant’s favour. 11.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 12.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Ahmadov and Others v. Azerbaijan [Committee], nos. 3225/10 and 5 others, 28 March 2019; Aliyeva and Others v. Azerbaijan [Committee], nos. 64593/16 and 3 others, 8 October 2020; and Valiyev and Others v. Azerbaijan [Committee], nos. 17419/16 and 8 others, 8 October 2020), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. 13.  The Court further notes that the respondent State has an outstanding obligation to enforce the decision which remains enforceable. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Declares the application admissible; Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning the non-enforcement of domestic decision; Holds that the respondent State shall ensure, by appropriate means, within three months, the enforcement of the pending domestic decision referred to in the appended table; Holds (a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; (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. Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 January 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.  Viktoriya Maradudina Diana Kovatcheva  Acting Deputy Registrar President       APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Relevant domestic decision Start date of non-enforcement period End date of non-enforcement period Length of enforcement proceedings Domestic order Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage (in euros)[1] Amount awarded for costs and expenses (in euros)[2] 18295/23 12/04/2023 Zabit Mubariz oglu BADALOV   Shaki Administrative-Economic Court, 27/06/2018   27/07/2018   pending More than 6 years and 8 months and 30 days   To calculate and pay compensation for unused vacation days during the years 2005-2010   3,600     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. [2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.