6655/19

THIRD SECTION CASE OF AGAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN (Application no. 6655/19)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 5 May 2026   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Agayev v. Azerbaijan, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Canòlic Mingorance Cairat, President,  Lətif Hüseynov,  Vasilka Sancin, judges, and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no. 6655/19) 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”) on 28 January 2019 by an Azerbaijani national, Mr Sakin Abdulhuseyn oglu Agayev (Sakin Abdulhüseyn oğlu Ağayev – “the applicant”), who was born in 1963, lives in Baku and was represented by Mr M. Mustafayev, a lawyer based in Azerbaijan; the decision to give notice of the application to the Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Əsgərov; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 31 March 2026, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.  By a final decision of 13 July 2018, the Supreme Court upheld judgments of the Baku Court of Appeal of 29 January 2018 and the Pirallahi District Court of 26 July 2017, ordering three individuals – including the applicant – to jointly pay a private individual the sum of 689,000 United States dollars in damages for failure to fulfil their contractual obligations. 2.  On 15 September 2018 the State Border Service stopped the applicant at the airport as he was trying to leave the country. 3.  On 17 September 2018 following an administrative-offence report issued by the bailiff, the Yasamal District Court found the applicant guilty under Article 528.1 of the Code of Administrative Offences of failing to comply with the orders of an enforcement officer in respect of the execution of a court judgment. It sentenced him to ten days’ administrative detention, holding that he had committed the administrative offence by failing to comply, within the prescribed time‑limit, with the enforcement order relating to the judgment of 26 July 2017. The applicant had pleaded not guilty and stated at the hearing that he had been unable to repay his judgment debt owing to his poor financial situation. 4.  The applicant appealed, arguing that the first-instance court had failed to establish the elements of the offence and had not taken into account the fact that he had not refused to comply with the judgment, but had been unable to do so owing to his poor financial situation. He also argued that he had only been warned once about his failure to comply with the judgment. 5.  On 22 September 2018 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the decision of 17 September 2018. The court did not address the applicant’s arguments. Its decision was final and was not subject to further appeal. The applicant served his term of detention. 6.  The applicant alleged that his conviction for failure to comply with a judgment ordering him to repay a debt owed to a private creditor had amounted to a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT        ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 7.  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. 8.  The Court refers to the general principles established in its case‑law and set out in Karimov and Others v. Azerbaijan (nos. 24219/16 and 2 others, §§ 29-30, 22 July 2021), which are pertinent to the present case. 9.  In particular, the Court reiterates that, according to its established case‑law reflecting a principle linked to the proper administration of justice, judgments of courts and tribunals should adequately state the reasons on which they are based. The extent to which this duty to give reasons applies may vary according to the nature of the decision and must be determined in the light of the circumstances of the case (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no.  30544/96, § 26, ECHR 1999‑I). Without requiring a detailed response to each of the complainant’s arguments, this obligation implies that any party to legal proceedings must be able to expect a specific and explicit response to the pleas in law which are decisive for the outcome of the proceedings in question (see, among other examples, Ruiz Torija v. Spain, 9 December 1994, §§ 29-30, Series A no. 303-A, and Higgins and Others v. France, 19 February 1998, §§ 42-43, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I). The Court seeks to establish whether the reasons provided for decisions given by the domestic courts are automatic or formulaic (see Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, § 84, 11 July 2017). 10.  Moreover, since the Convention is intended to guarantee rights that are not theoretical or illusory but practical and effective, the right to a fair trial can only be regarded as effective if the parties’ submissions are truly “heard”, that is to say, properly examined by the tribunal (see Fodor v. Romania, no. 45266/07, § 28, 16 September 2014; Carmel Saliba v. Malta, no. 24221/13, § 65, 29 November 2016; and Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan (no. 2), no. 919/15, § 206, 16 November 2017). In examining the fairness of criminal proceedings, the Court has also held, in particular, that by ignoring a specific, pertinent and important point made by the accused, domestic courts fall short of their obligations under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Nechiporuk and Yonkalo v. Ukraine, no. 42310/04, § 280, 21 April 2011, and Ayetullah Ay v. Turkey, nos. 29084/07 and 1191/08, § 127, 27 October 2020). 11.  The Court notes that the applicant’s conviction under Article 528.1 of the Code of Administrative Offences required the domestic courts to establish that the non‑execution of the judgment had occurred without a valid reason, making an individualised assessment of the applicant’s financial situation and good faith essential. However, despite that requirement of domestic law and the Constitutional Court’s decision of 4 September 2018 (see Karimov and Others, cited above, § 31), the domestic courts neither examined whether the applicant’s failure to execute the relevant judgment was justified nor addressed his submissions (see paragraphs 4 and 5 above). The courts did not assess whether the applicant’s failure to pay the judgment debt had been intentional or whether he had made efforts to comply with the bailiff’s requests (see Karimov and Others, cited above, §§ 31-33). 12.  It follows that the essential argument which the applicant had raised, and which was decisive for the outcome of the case, did not receive a specific and explicit reply, and that, consequently, the domestic courts failed to comply with their obligation to give reasons for their decisions, as required by Article 6 of the Convention (compare Karimov and Others, cited above, § 34). 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 in the present case. 13.  There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.       ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 4 TO THE CONVENTION 14.  Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and its findings above (see paragraph 13 above), the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine the admissibility and merits of the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014, and compare Karimov and Others, cited above, §§ 36‑38). APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 15.  The applicant claimed 30,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non‑pecuniary damage. 16.  The Government contested the applicant’s claim as excessive and unsubstantiated and argued that the finding of a violation would constitute sufficient reparation for any non-pecuniary damage suffered by him. 17.  Ruling on an equitable basis, as required by Article 41 of the Convention, the Court awards the applicant EUR 3,600 in respect of non‑pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable. 18.  The applicant did not claim any sum in respect of costs and expenses. Given those circumstances, the Court considers that no sum should be paid to the applicant in that regard. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Declares the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention admissible; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention; Holds that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention; Holds  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, EUR 3,600 (three thousand six hundred euros), to be converted into the currency of the respondent State, at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non‑pecuniary damage;   that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points; Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 5 May 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.    Olga Chernishova Canòlic Mingorance Cairat  Deputy Registrar President