European Court passes decision on one more case related to Azerbaijan

European Court passes decision on one more case related to Azerbaijan
# 18 December 2008 16:19 (UTC +04:00)
Baku. Victoria Dementieva-APA. European Court of Human Rights passed a decision on one more case related to Azerbaijan. The applicants are ten Azerbaijani nationals. In May 2003 they founded “Azerbaijani Lawyers Forum”, a non-profit organisation. Relying in particular on Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association), the applicants complained about the significant delay in the state registering their association, with the result that their organisation could not acquire legal status. The Court found that the Ministry of Justice, despite the statutory ten-day time-limit in force at the relevant time, had only issued a formal response to the applicants’ registration request after almost eight months. Furthermore, the domestic law at that time had not provided sufficient protection against such a delay. The Court therefore concluded that that had amounted to interference by the authorities with the applicants’ right to freedom of association which had not been “prescribed by law”. Accordingly, it held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 11.


European Court passes decision on one more case related to Azerbaijan

Baku. Victoria Dementieva-APA. European Court of Human Rights passed a decision on one more case related to Azerbaijan. The applicants are ten Azerbaijani nationals. In May 2003 they founded “Azerbaijani Lawyers Forum”, a non-profit organisation. Relying in particular on Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association), the applicants complained about the significant delay in the state registering their association, with the result that their organisation could not acquire legal status. The Court found that the Ministry of Justice, despite the statutory ten-day time-limit in force at the relevant time, had only issued a formal response to the applicants’ registration request after almost eight months. Furthermore, the domestic law at that time had not provided sufficient protection against such a delay. The Court therefore concluded that that had amounted to interference by the authorities with the applicants’ right to freedom of association which had not been “prescribed by law”. Accordingly, it held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 11.
#
#

THE OPERATION IS BEING PERFORMED