Review of ECHR decisions for 12/03/2025

Here’s a detailed analysis of the ECHR decision in Amirov v. Azerbaijan:

1. Essence of the decision in 3-5 sentences:
The case concerns unlawful pre-trial detention of an Azerbaijani opposition party member and newspaper financial director who was arrested in 2016 on charges related to alleged connections with the Gülen movement. The Court found that Azerbaijan violated Article 5 § 1 of the Convention as the applicant’s detention was not based on reasonable suspicion of having committed a criminal offense. The Court determined that mere possession of books and materials about Gülen did not constitute criminal behavior under domestic law, and authorities failed to demonstrate how the applicant’s actions met the legal elements of the charged crimes.

2. Structure and main provisions:
– The decision examines whether there was “reasonable suspicion” justifying detention under Article 5
– The Court analyzed both factual basis for suspicion and whether alleged acts constituted crimes
– Key focus was on lack of evidence and failure to meet criminal elements under domestic law
– The Court awarded €7,500 in non-pecuniary damages and €1,500 for legal costs
– The Court rejected claims under Article 18 and Article 6 § 2 of the Convention

3. Most important provisions for use:
– The Court established that “reasonable suspicion” requires both factual basis and acts that constitute crimes under domestic law
– Mere possession of non-forbidden religious literature cannot constitute criminal behavior without additional elements
– Courts must specifically examine and reference evidence rather than make general statements
– Domestic courts must verify existence of suspicion by reviewing initial evidence
– For incitement charges under Article 283.2, acts must be committed “openly or via mass media” – private possession is insufficient

The decision provides important precedent for cases involving detention based on possession of religious or political materials without evidence of their public dissemination or use in criminal activities. It reinforces requirements for specific evidence review by courts when ordering detention.

Here’s a detailed analysis of the ECHR decision in Aytaj Ahmadova v. Azerbaijan:

1. Essence of the decision in 3-5 sentences:
The case concerns Azerbaijan’s failure to investigate a journalist’s complaint about the publication of her private photographs and video recordings on Facebook, along with insults and threats. The materials were allegedly stored only on her computer which was seized and retained by state authorities. The Court found that Azerbaijan violated Article 8 of the Convention (right to respect for private life) by failing to properly examine the complaint and take effective steps to investigate the circumstances and identify perpetrators.

2. Structure and main provisions:
– The case examines state’s positive obligations under Article 8 regarding protection of private life
– Key focus is on authorities’ complete failure to investigate the complaint:
* Prosecutor’s office ignored three complaints from the applicant
* Courts rejected complaints in formalistic manner without proper examination
* No criminal proceedings were initiated or refused
– The Court established that:
* The acts were serious enough to warrant investigation
* Azerbaijan failed its positive obligations to protect private life
* Effective protection required investigation of circumstances and perpetrators
* Domestic remedies were ineffective due to authorities’ inaction

3. Most important provisions for practical use:
– States have positive obligations to prevent disclosure of private information and investigate when disclosure occurs
– When private data is in state custody, authorities have heightened responsibility to protect it
– Complaints about privacy violations require effective investigation, not just formal responses
– Courts must examine such complaints substantively, not reject them on technicalities
– State authorities must inform complainants about investigation results
– Damages can be awarded for authorities’ failure to investigate privacy violations

The decision is significant as it establishes clear standards for state obligations in protecting private data and investigating privacy violations, especially when the data was in state custody. It emphasizes that formal responses without actual investigation are insufficient to meet Convention requirements.