Incompatible with the European Convention the ban to exit the country to witnesses to a criminal court
JUDGMENT
Mursaliyev κ.α. v. Azerbaijan 13.12.2018 (no. 66650/13, 24749/16, 43327/16, 62775/16, 68722/16, 76071/16, 8051/17, 8702/17, 12870/17, 21246/17 and 37696/17)
SUMMARY
Prohibition to exit from the country of witnesses in criminal courts. The right of witnesses to leave their country has been violated in accordance with the Fourth Protocol of the ECHR.
JUDGMENT
Article 2 of Protocol n. 4
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The case concerned travel bans imposed on witnesses in criminal proceedings.
The applicants are 11 Azerbaijani nationals living in Baku and other cities in Azerbaijan.
On different dates between 2012 and 2016 the applicants learned that they were no longer allowed
to leave Azerbaijan. The investigation authorities apparently imposed the bans within the framework
of various criminal proceedings in which the applicants had been questioned as witnesses, and not
as the accused or suspects. The authorities lifted some of the travel bans in 2016.
On various dates the applicants lodged complaints with the courts, claiming that domestic law did
not provide for the imposition of travel bans on witnesses in criminal proceedings.
The domestic courts refused to examine all but one of the applicants’ complaints on the merits
because they did not have competence.
As regards the remaining applicant (in application no. 66650/13) the courts did examine his
complaint on the merits, but found that the restriction on his right to leave the country was justified.
His appeal was dismissed.
Relying in particular on Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (right to liberty of movement) to the European
Convention on Human Rights, all the applicants complained that their right to leave their own
country had been breached. Relying in particular on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the
Convention, ten of the applicants also alleged that they had not had an effective remedy in respect
of the travel bans imposed on them because the domestic courts had failed to properly examine
their complaints. Lastly, five of the applicants complained under Article 34 (right of individual application) that a letter sent to them by the European Court on their case had been delayed, alleging that this must have been because of Government interference with the postal service.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT
Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 – in respect of all the applicants
Violation of Article 13 – in respect of all the applicants, except the applicant in application
no. 24749/16
No violation of Article 34
Just satisfaction: 5,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage to each applicant and EUR 1,000 for
costs and expenses to each applicant, except the applicants in applications nos. 62775/16 and
68722/16(echrcaselaw.com editing).
