The ECHR ruling of July 22, 2021 in the case "Karimov and Others v. Azerbaijan" (complaint No. 24219/16 and 2 other complaints).
In 2016, the applicants were assisted in the preparation of complaints. Subsequently, the complaints were combined and communicated to Azerbaijan.
Complaints about the failure to take into account information about the financial insolvency of a person when applying administrative arrest for non-execution of court decisions on debt payment were successfully considered in the case. There was a violation of article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention in the case.
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The applicants were sentenced to administrative arrest for non-execution of court decisions on the payment of debts to private creditors. The applicants claimed that the proceedings in their case were unfair, that they were sentenced without taking into account the applicants' reports of their financial inability to pay their debts, although this requirement is expressly provided for by the legislation of Azerbaijan.
LEGAL ISSUES
Regarding compliance with paragraph 1 of article 6 of the Convention. The complaint concerned the fairness of the administrative proceedings, which caused criminal consequences, within the meaning of the requirements of article 6 of the Convention.
The European Court limited itself to the consideration of the proceedings, which ended with the issuance of final decisions by which the courts of Azerbaijan imposed an administrative penalty on the applicants, which meant the deprivation of their liberty as debtors.
All parties to the trial should be able to expect an accurate and clear answer to the arguments that are decisive for the outcome of the consideration of the relevant case. In addition, the grounds cited by the courts should not be automatic or formulaic.
The courts of Azerbaijan found the applicants guilty of a crime provided for by the Code of Administrative Offences and imposed punishment in the form of administrative arrest on them. In determining the applicants' guilt, it was necessary to establish that, in the absence of valid reasons, the applicants did not comply with court decisions according to which they were obliged to pay their debts to creditors. The reasons voiced by debtors to justify the non-fulfillment of their financial obligations were decisive for the characterization of the act, since they could contain grounds for exemption from liability. An individual assessment of the debtors' financial condition and their intentions in case of non-execution of court decisions was essential. In the relevant proceedings, which had a criminal-legal nature with administrative aspects, the prosecution was required to prove that the debtors really, contrary to their claims, had the financial ability to pay their debts.
In such circumstances, it was obvious that the arguments given by the applicants in the courts of Azerbaijan, in particular, that the reason for their failure to comply with court decisions was their lack of financial ability to pay debts, were of key importance within the meaning of the letter of the law and required a clear answer and judicial consideration of whether the applicants were respectful the reasons are reasonable. If the reason for the applicants' failure to comply with court decisions was financial insolvency, then this could raise the issue of compliance with article 1 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, according to which "no one can be deprived of liberty solely on the grounds that he is unable to fulfill any contractual obligation." However, the Azerbaijani courts did not make any efforts to verify whether there were valid reasons for non-enforcement of the court's decisions, and also did not consider the relevant argument, despite the fact that the applicants asked them to do so in the courts of both the first and second instances. The failure of the Azerbaijani courts to consider the reasons for the applicants' failure to comply with court decisions seemed even more contradictory, since the court decisions themselves on the application of punishment to the applicants contained information about the applicants' difficult financial situation and there were no indications of doubts about the factual reliability of financial difficulties that prevented the payment of debts.
Moreover, the Constitutional Court of Azerbaijan stressed the mandatory requirement for a thorough investigation by the courts of all aspects when applying administrative punishment or penalties for non-execution of a court decision, as well as the need to assess whether the non-execution was intentional or the debtor used all available means to fulfill the bailiff's requirements. In the present case, it should have been recognized that these factors were not investigated by the courts, which applied punishment to the applicants.
Consequently, the present case did not provide an accurate and clear answer to the fundamental argument put forward by the applicants, which was decisive for the outcome of the proceedings in the case, and therefore the Azerbaijani courts did not fulfill the obligation provided for in article 6 of the Convention to motivate their decisions.
RESOLUTION
There was a violation of paragraph 1 of article 6 of the Convention in the case (adopted unanimously).
Referring to article 1 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, the applicants argued that the administrative arrest was based solely on their inability to fulfill their contractual obligations. However, taking into account the circumstances of the case, the arguments of the party and the conclusions regarding paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the Convention, the European Court ruled that there was no need to consider this part of the complaint for its admissibility and merits.
COMPENSATION
In the application of article 41 of the Convention. The European Court awarded the applicants 3,600 euros in compensation for moral damage.