issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 070 (2025)
11.03.2025
Judgments of 11 March 2025
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing two Chamber judgments1which are
summarised below.
These judgments are available only in English.
Amirov v. Azerbaijan (application no. 55642/16)
The applicant, Faig Samidkhan oglu Amirov, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1973 and lives
in Baku. He was an opposition party activist, and worked as the financial director of the Azadliq
newspaper.
The case concerns the applicant’s arrest and detention on remand based on charges linked to his
allegedly belonging to the Gülenist movement in Azerbaijan. In particular, in August 2016 the police
had stopped him when he had been about to get into his car and, following a search, had found some
CD-ROMs and books about the life and ideas of Fethullah Gülen. Just under a year later, he was
convicted of tax evasion and incitement to ethnic, racial, social or religious hatred and hostility.
Relying on Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human
Rights, the applicant alleges that he was arrested and detained without a “reasonable suspicion” that
he had committed a criminal offence and that the national courts had failed to justify his pre-trial
detention. He also complains under Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence) that a press statement
by the law-enforcement authorities shortly after his arrest portrayed him as a criminal. He also brings
a complaint under Article 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights) in conjunction with Article 5.
Violation of Article 5 § 1
Just satisfaction:
non-pecuniary damage: 7,500 euros (EUR)
costs and expenses: EUR 1,500
Aytaj Ahmadova v. Azerbaijan (no. 30551/18)
The applicant, Aytaj Soltan gizi Ahmadova, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1993 and lives
in Baku. She is a journalist.
She alleges that, in September 2015, when working with Meydan TV, an online news portal, she was
forced to go to the Organised Crime Department (OCD) of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the
Republic of Azerbaijan, where she was questioned about the news portal and its activities. On the
same day, employees of the OCD conducted a search of her flat allegedly without a warrant or court
order and seized her computer. From the following September onwards, some of her personal photos
and video-recordings at home with her family or at the beach were published on various Facebook
1
Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a Chamber
judgment’s 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. Under Article 28 of the Convention,
judgments delivered by a Committee are final.
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
accounts apparently belonging to fake individuals. The posts were accompanied by captions which
suggested that the applicant should be “hanged by her tongue”, “hanged naked in front of everyone”
and so on. The case concerns the alleged failure by the domestic authorities to examine her complaints
about the publication of her private photographs and videos on Facebook, accompanied by insults and
threats.
Relying on Articles 6 (right to a fair trial) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the
European Convention, the applicant complains that her right to respect for her private life was not
respected, and that the domestic authorities failed to examine her complaints in that respect. She also
complains under Article 10 of the Convention of a violation of her right to freedom of expression, and
under Article 13 that the failure of the State authorities to examine her complaints amounted to a
breach of her right to an effective remedy.
Violation of Article 8
Just satisfaction:
non-pecuniary damage: EUR 4,500
costs and expenses: EUR 1,000
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 https://www.echr.coe.int/home.
To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on
X (Twitter) @ECHR_CEDH and Bluesky @echr.coe.int.
Press contacts
[email protected]e.int | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08
We are happy to receive journalists’ enquiries via either email or telephone.
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)
Neil Connolly (tel.: + 33 3 90 21 48 05)
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.
2