This document has been provided by the
International Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ICNL).

ICNL is the leading source for information on th e legal environment for civil society and public
participation. Since 1992, ICNL has served as a resource to civil society leaders, government
officials, and the donor community in over 90 countries.

Visit ICNL’s Online Library at
https://www.icnl.org/knowledge/library/index.php
for further resources and research from countries all over the world.

Disclaimers Content. The information provided herein is for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not intended and should not be
construed to constitute legal advice. The information contai ned herein may not be applicable in all situations and may not, after the date of
its presentation, even reflect the most current authority. Noth ing contained herein should be relied or acted upon without the benefit of legal
advice based upon the particular facts and circumstances pres ented, and nothing herein should be construed otherwise.
Translations. Translations by ICNL of any materials into other languages are intended solely as a convenience. Translation accuracy is not
guaranteed nor implied. If any questions arise related to the accuracy of a translation, please refer to the original language official version of
the document. Any discrepancies or differences created in the tr anslation are not binding and have no legal effect for compliance or
enforcement purposes.
Warranty and Limitation of Liability. Although ICNL uses reasonable efforts to include ac curate and up-to-date information herein, ICNL
makes no warranties or representations of any kind as to its a ccuracy, currency or completeness. You agree that access to and u se of this
document and the content thereof is at your own risk. ICNL discl aims all warranties of any kind, express or implied. Neither ICNL nor any
party involved in creating, producing or delivering this document shall be liable for any damages whatsoever arising out of access to, use of
or inability to use this document, or any e rrors or omissions in the content thereof.

CO N SEIL
DE L’EUROPE COU N CIL
OF EUROPE
COUR EUROPÉE N N E DES DROITS DE L’HOMM E
EU R OPEA N COU RTOFHUMA N R IGHTS

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF RAMAZANOVA AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

(Application no. 44363/02)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

1 February 2007

FINAL

01/05/2007

This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the
Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

RAMAZANOVA AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN JUDGMENT 1
In the case of Ramazanova and Others v. Azerbaijan,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a
Chamber composed of:
Mr C.L. ROZAKIS , President,
Mr
L. LOUCAIDES ,
Mrs
F. TULKENS ,
Mrs
E. STEINER ,
Mr
K. HAJIYEV ,
Mr
D. SPIELMANN ,
Mr
S.E. JEBENS , judges,
and Mr
S. NIELSEN , Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 11 January 2007,
Delivers the following judgment, wh ich was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 44363/ 02) against the
Republic of Azerbaijan lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the
Convention for the Protection of Huma n Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
(“the Convention”) by 4 Azerbaij ani nationals, Ms Nabat Ramazanova,
Mr Emin Zeynalov, Ms Zarifa Ganbar ova and Mr Eldar Alizadeh (“the
applicants”), on 22 November 2002.
2. The applicants were represented by Mr I. Aliyev, a lawyer practising
in Baku. The Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”) were
represented by their Agent, Mr C. Asgarov.
3. The applicants alleged that th e significant delays in the state
registration of their public association amounted to a violation of their right
to freedom of association, that the domestic courts were not independent
and impartial, and that the domestic remedies were not effective in lawsuits
filed by public associations against the Ministry of Justice of Azerbaijan.
4. On 4 September 2003 the Court decided to give notice of the
application to the Government. On 2 March 2006, under the provisions of
Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it de cided to examine the merits of the
application at the same time as its admissibility.

2 RAMAZANOVA AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN JUDGMENT
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
5. The applicants were born in 1947, 1949, 1952 and 1947 respectively
and live in Baku.
6. On 4 April 2001 the applicants founded a public association named
“Assistance to the Human Rights Protection of the Homeless and
Vulnerable Residents of Baku” ( “Evsiz və Məzlum Bak ılı lar ın İnsan
Hüquqlar ını n Müdafi əsin ə Yardı m” İctimai Birliyi ). This was a non-profit
organisation aimed at provi ding aid to the homeless and protection of their
interests.
A. The applicants’ requests for state registration and the original sets of judicial proceedings
7. On 9 April 2001 the applicants f iled a request for the association’s
state registration with the Ministry of Ju stice (hereinafter also referred to as
the “Ministry”), the government au thority responsible for the state
registration of legal entities. Accordi ng to the Government, this request was
filed on 12 April 2001. Under the domestic law, a non-governmental
organisation acquired the status of a legal entity only upon its state
registration by the Ministry.
8. On 18 May 2001 the Ministry return ed the registration documents to
the applicants “without taking any ac tion”, i.e. without issuing a state
registration certificate or an official refusal to register the association. In the
cover letter, the Ministry noted that th e association’s charter did not comply
with Article 6 of the Law On Non-Governmental Organisations , because it
did not include a provisi on on the territorial area of the association’s
activity.
9. The applicants redrafted the charter in line with the Ministry’s
comments and on 4 June 2001 filed th e second registration request,
submitting a new version of the charter. On 10 September 2001 the Ministry
responded with another refusal, stati ng that the charter was once again not
in compliance with the requirements of the Law On Non-Governmental
Organisations . Specifically, it failed to provide for the terms of office of the
association’s supervisory board, as required by Article 25.1 of that Law.
10. The applicants again revised the charter and on 2 October 2001
submitted their third registration request.
11. Having not received any response to their third registration request
for several months, on 22 May 2002 the applicants applied to the Yasamal
District Court, complaining that th e Ministry “evaded” registering their
organisation and asking the court to oblig e the Ministry to register it. They

RAMAZANOVA AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN JUDGMENT 3
also demanded moral compensation in the amount of
25,000,000 Azerbaijani manats (AZM).
12. On 5 July 2002 the Ministry sent a letter to the court, informing that
the documents were again returned “w ith no action taken” by the Ministry.
This time the reason for declining the registration was the applicants’ failure
to include in the charter the conditions for membership in the association, as
required by Article 10.3 of the Law On Non-Governmental Organisations .
13. On 15 July 2002 the Yasamal District Court dismissed the
applicants’ claim, finding nothing unlawful in the actions of the Ministry.
The court found that the association’ s charter had not been drafted in
accordance with the requirements of the domestic law.
14. The applicants appealed. On 19 September 2002 the Court of Appeal
upheld the district court’s judgment . On 20 November 2002 the Supreme
Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision.
15. In the meantime, the applican ts once again re-drafted the
organisation’s charter according to the Ministry’s latest comments and on 29
July 2002 submitted their fourth registration request. Having not received a
reply within the statutory five-day pe riod, they filed a new lawsuit with the
Yasamal District Court, claiming that the Ministry committed repeated
procedural violations and unlawfully delayed the examination of their
registration request.
16. The representatives of the Ministry argued in th e court that the
examination of the applicants’ regist ration request was delayed due to the
heavy workload of the Ministry’s Department of State Registration of Legal
Entities.
17. On 5 September 2002 the Yasamal Di strict Court issued a procedural
decision ( qərardad) on “leaving the claim without examination”, i.e.
declaring the applicant’s lawsuit inadmissible. The court noted that the
applicants’ registration request was still pending examination with the
Ministry of Justice and that the a pplicant had filed the lawsuit without
exhausting extrajudicial resolution of the matter. On 1 November 2002 the
Court of Appeal and on 13 January 2003 the Supreme Court upheld this
decision.
18. While the second lawsuit wa s still examined on appeal, the
applicants, having not received any answ er from the Ministry by December
2002, filed another lawsuit, asking the co urt to provide legal interpretation
as to whether the Ministry had a right under the domestic law to delay and
decline registration multiple times, and to forward the matter of
constitutionality of the Ministry’s actions for the consideration of the
Constitutional Court. On 18 December 2002 the Yasamal District Court
refused to admit the lawsuit, noting that the applicants’ previous lawsuit was
still under consideration on appeal. It also noted that, under the domestic
law applicable at that time, a petition to forward the case to the

4 RAMAZANOVA AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN JUDGMENT
Constitutional Court should be filed with the Supreme Court. By a final
decision of 26 September 2003, the S upreme Court upheld this decision.
19. In January 2003, about six months after the filing of the applicants’
fourth registration request in Ju ly 2002, the Ministry again refused
registration. It appears that, on a later unspecified date, having again
re-drafted the charter, the applicants re-submitted their registration request
for the fifth time.
20. At the same time, the applican ts filed a new lawsuit against the
Ministry’s latest refusal. On 26 Fe bruary 2003 the Yasamal District Court
refused to admit this lawsuit, beca use the applicants’ appeals in earlier
lawsuits were still pending before the higher courts. By a final decision of
3 September 2003, the Supreme Court upheld this decision.
21. Finally, the applicants filed an additional-cassation appeal with the
President of the Supreme Court, requesting the reope ning of the proceedings
and referral of the case to the Plenum of the Supreme Court. By a letter of
10 November 2003, the Supreme Court’s Pr esident rejected the applicants’
request, finding no grounds for th e reopening of the proceedings.
B. Decision of the Constitutional Court
22. The applicants filed a constitutional complaint against the domestic
courts’ judgments, claiming that a numb er of their constitutional rights had
been violated. On 23 February 2004 the Constitutional Court admitted their
complaint for examination on the merits.
23. By a decision of 11 May 2004, the Constitutional Court found that
all the judgments and decisions of the Yasamal District Court, the Court of
Appeal and the Supreme C ourt were in breach of the judicial guarantees for
protection of human rights and freedoms, as guaranteed by the Constitution.
Specifically, the Constitutional Court note d that, in the first set of judicial
proceedings, the domestic courts failed to examine the applicants’ complaint
thoroughly and assess the evidence objectively. In particular, in the first set
of civil proceedings, the courts failed to thoroughly examine the issue of an
alleged violation of the applicants’ right to freedom of association and to
determine the factual circumstances of the case relating to this issue. The
Constitutional Court found that, thus, the domestic courts violated Articles
60 and 70 (I) of the Constitution, providing for judicial guarantees of
individual rights and freedoms, as we ll as a number of provisions of the
Code of Civil Procedure. It further found that, in the subsequent judicial
proceedings, the domestic courts likewise violated the same provisions of
the Constitution.
24. The Constitutional Court quashed all the domestic judgments and
decisions relating to the applicants’ case and remitted the case to the courts
of general jurisdiction for a new examin ation. It specifically instructed them

RAMAZANOVA AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN JUDGMENT 5
to examine the alleged violation of the applicants’ right to freedom of
association guaranteed by Artic le 58 of the Constitution.
C. State registration of the as sociation and subsequent judicial
proceedings
25. On 18 February 2005 the Ministry of Justice, in response to the
applicants’ fifth registration request, re gistered the association and issued a
state registrati on certificate.
26. On the same day, the Yasamal District Court re-examined the
applicants’ complaint concerning the unlawful actions of the Ministry and
their claim of compensation in the amount of AZM 25,000,000 for the
alleged violation of their freedom of association. The court dismissed the
applicants’ claims, noting that, by the time of the new examination of the
case, the applicants’ association had al ready been registered and, therefore,
the disputed matter had been solve d. The court further held that the
domestic law did not provide for comp ensation for moral damages in such
situations.
27. On 22 July 2005 the Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance courts’
judgment. On 22 December 2005 the Supreme Court upheld the lower
courts’ judgments.
28. It appears that, thereafter, the ap plicants filed a new lawsuit, seeking
acknowledgement of a breach of domestic law by the Ministry of Justice.
On 14 September 2006 the Yasamal Distri ct Court rejected this claim.
Following an appeal, on 8 December 2006 the Court of Appeal found that
the repeated delays by the relevant official of the Ministry of Justice in
responding to the applicants’ registrati on requests had constituted a breach
of requirements of Article 9 of the Law On State Registration of Legal
Entities . The court awarded three of the four applicants in the present case,
Ms Ramazanova, Mr Alizadeh and Ms Ga nbarova, collectively, the sum of
800 New Azerbaijani manats (AZN)
1, which approximately equals to
705 euros (EUR), as a compensation for moral damages. This amount was
to be paid by the relevant official of the Ministry of Justice responsible for
the delays in the association’s state registration.

1. Pursuant to denomination of national currency effective from 1 January 2006, AZN 1 is
equal to AZM 5,000.

6 RAMAZANOVA AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN JUDGMENT
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
A. Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan of 12 November 1995
Article 58. Right to association
“I. Everyone has a right to freedom of association with others.
II. Everyone has the right to form any association, including political parties, trade
unions or other public associations, or join existing associations. Free functioning of
all associations shall be guaranteed. …”
Article 60. Judicial guarantees of human rights and freedoms
“I. Judicial protection of every person’s rights and freedoms shall be guaranteed.
II. Every person shall have a right to complain in the court about decisions and
actions (or omission to act) of state authorities, political parties, trade unions and other
public associations, as well as public officials.”
Article 71. Guarantees for human and civic rights and freedoms
“I. The executive, legislative and judicial powers shall have the duty to guarantee
and protect human rights and freedoms fixed in the Constitution. …”
B. Civil Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan of 2000
Article 47. Charter of a legal entity
“47.1. The charter of a legal entity approved by its founders is the legal entity’s
foundation document. …
47.2. The charter of a legal entity shall define the name, address, procedure for
management of activities and procedure for liquidation of the legal entity. The charter
of a non-commercial legal entity shall define the object and purpose of its activities.
…”
Article 48. State registr ation of legal entities
“48.1. A legal entity shall be subject to state registration by the relevant executive
authority. …
48.2. A violation of the procedure of a legal entity’s establishment or non-
compliance of its charter with Article 47 of the present Code shall be the grounds for
refusal to register the legal entity. …”

RAMAZANOVA AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN JUDGMENT 7
C. Law “On State Registration of Legal Entities” of 6 February 1996
Article 9. Review of the application [for state registration] “Upon receipt of an application for state re gistration from a legal entity or a branch
or representative office of a foreign legal entity, the authority responsible for state
registration shall:
– accept the documents for review;
– within ten days, issue to the applicant a state registration certificate or a written
notification of the refusal to register; or
– review the documents resubmitted after rectification of the breaches previously
existing therein and, within five days, take a decision on state registration.”
D. Law “On Non-Governmental Or ganisations (Public Associations
and Funds)” of 13 June 2000
Article 6. [Territorial] area of ac tivities of non-governmental organisations
“6.1. Non-governmental organisations may be established and carry out their
activities with the all-Azerbaijani, regional, and local status. The area of activities of a
non-governmental organisation shall be determined independently by the
organisation.
6.2. Activities of all-Azerbaijani non-governmental organisations shall apply to the
whole territory of the Azerbaijan Republic. Activities of regional non-governmental
organisations shall cover two or more administrative-territorial units of the Republic
of Azerbaijan. Local non-government organisations shall operate within one
administrative-territorial unit. …”
Article 10. Members of public associations
“3. The issue of acquiring and termination of membership in a public association
shall be determined by its charter. Charte r of a public association shall guarantee the
right to lodge a complaint, within the asso ciation and in court, regarding termination
of membership. …”
Article 16. State registration of non-governmental organisations
“16.1. The state registration of non-governmental organisations shall be carried out
by the relevant executive auth ority in accordance with the laws of the Republic of
Azerbaijan on state registration of legal entities.
16.2. Non-governmental organisations shall acquire the status of a legal entity only
after passing the state registration.”

8 RAMAZANOVA AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN JUDGMENT
Article 17. Refusal of state registration
“17.1. Non-governmental organisations can be refused registration only if there is
another organisation existing under the same name, or if the documents submitted for
registration contradict the Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan, this law and
other laws of the Republic of Azerbaijan, or contain false information.
17.2. Decision on refusal of state registration shall be presented in writing to the
representative of the non-governmental organisation, with indication of the grounds
for refusal as well as the provisions and articles of the legislation breached upon
preparation of the foundation documents.
17.3. Refusal of registration shall not prevent the organisation from resubmitting its
registration documents after rectification of the breaches.
17.4. The decision on refusal of state registration may be challenged in court.”
Article 25. Principles of mana gement of public associations
“25.1. The charter of a public associatio n shall, in accordance with this law and
other laws, define the structure and composition of the public association; the
competence, formation procedur e and term of office of its managing bodies; as well as
the procedure for decision-making and representation of the public association. …”
E. Law “On Grant” of 17 April 1998
Article 1. Grant
“1. A grant is an assistance rendered pursuant to this law in order to develop and
implement humanitarian, social and ecological projects, works on rehabilitation of
destroyed objects of industrial and social purpose, of infrastructure in the territories
damaged as a result of the war and disaster, programs in the field of education, health,
culture, legal advice, information, publishi ng, sport, scientific research and design
programs as well as other programs of importance for the state and public. A grant
shall only be provided for a specific purpose (or purposes).
2. A grant shall be provided in the financial and/or in any other material form. The
grant shall be rendered gratis and its repayment in any form may not be requested. …”
Article 3. Recipient
“1. A grant beneficiary is a r ecipient in respect of a donor.
2. The following may be a recipient:
– The Azerbaijani State in the person of the relevant executive authority;
– Municipal authorities;

RAMAZANOVA AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN JUDGMENT 9
– Resident and non-resident legal entities, their branches, representative offices and
departments carrying out activity in the Republic of Azerbaijan, whose main
objective, according to their articles of association, is charitable activities or
implementation of projects and programs that may be a subject of a grant, and which
are not aimed at direct generation of profit resulting from the grant; and
– Individuals in the Republic of Azerbaijan. …”
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF AR TICLE 11 OF THE CONVENTION
29. The applicants complained that th e failure by the Ministry of Justice
to register their organisation in a timely manner constituted an interference
with their freedom of association. As the Ministry evaded registering the
organisation by significantly delaying the examination of their registration
requests and breaching the statutory time-limits for the official response,
their association could not acquire lega l status. This allegedly constituted a
violation of their right to freedom of association, as provided in Article 11
of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of
association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the
protection of his interests.
2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as
are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of
national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the
protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of
others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the
exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the
administration of the State.”
A. Admissibility
1. Compatibility ratione temporis
30. The Court observes that part of the events giving rise to the
applicants’ complaint relate to the pe riod before 15 April 2002, the date of
the Convention’s entry into force w ith respect to Azerbaijan. The Court
notes that it is only competent to examine complaints of violations of the
Convention arising from events that ha ve occurred after the Convention had

10 RAMAZANOVA AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN JUDGMENT
entered into force with respect to th e High Contracting Party concerned (see
e.g. Kazimova v. Azerbaijan (dec.), no. 40368/02, 6 March 2003).
31. Accordingly, the Court’s competen ce is limited to the part of the
complaint relating to the events that occurred after 15 April 2002, whereas
the events relating to the applicants’ first and second registration requests as
well as part of the events relating to the third registration request fall outside
of its competence ratione temporis. Nevertheless, where necessary, the
Court shall take into account the state of affairs as it existed at
the beginning
of the period under consideration
.
2. The applicants’ victim status
32. Referring to the fact that the Ministry of Justice registered the
association on 18 February 2005, the Government submitted that the matter
had been resolved and requested the C ourt to strike the application out of
the list of cases. The Court consider s that, in substance, this request
amounted to an assertion that the applicants were no longer victims of the
alleged violation of the Convention.
33. The applicants disagreed. They noted that the domestic authorities
did not acknowledge the viol ation of their right to freedom of association
and did not afford redress for this violation.
34. The Court recalls that the word “victim” denotes the person directly
affected by the act or omissi on which is in issue (see e.g.
Marckx
v. Belgium
, judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, p. 13, § 27). In the
present case the applicants, all of whom were the original founders of the
public association, compla ined about arbitrary delays in the state
registration of the association, as a re sult of which the association could not
obtain a legal entity status and function properly. This directly affected its
founders’ right to freedom of association, depriving them of a possibility to
jointly or individually pursue the aims they had laid down in the
association’s charter and, thus, to exercise the right in question (see, mutatis
mutandis , Sidiropoulos and Others v. Greece , judgment of 10 July 1998,
Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV, p. 1612, § 31; see also
paragraphs 54-60 below).
35. The Court further recalls that a decision or measure favourable to an
applicant is not in principle sufficien t to deprive him of his status as a
“victim” unless the national authoritie s have acknowledged, either expressly
or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention
(see Amuur v. France , judgment of 25 June 1996, Reports 1996-III, p. 846,
§ 36; and
Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 44, ECHR 1999-VI).
Only when these conditions are satisfie d does the subsidiary nature of the
protective mechanism of the Conven tion preclude examination of an
application.
36. The Court observes that the mere fact that the authorities finally
registered the association after a significant delay ca nnot be viewed in this

RAMAZANOVA AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN JUDGMENT 11
case as automatically depriving the applicants of their victim status under
the Convention.
37. The Court notes that, up to December 2006, neither the domestic
courts nor any other dome stic authorities have expressly acknowledged that
there was an interference with the applicants’ Convention rights. Although
the Constitutional Court quashed the ear lier judgments and decisions of the
courts of general jurisdiction, the C onstitutional Court itself did not find a
violation of the app licants’ right to freedom of association. It merely ordered
a new examination of the issue of whet her this right of the applicants had
been violated. Finally, on 6 December 2006, the Court of Appeal
acknowledged a breach of the domestic procedural requirements by the
relevant official of the State Registration Department of the Ministry of
Justice and ordered him to pay mora l compensation to the applicants.
Arguably, this constitute d an acknowledgement of a violation of the
applicants’ right to freedom of associ ation by the State. However, the Court
does not consider it necessary to determine this issue for the following
reason.
38. Even assuming that the authori ties have acknowledged a violation of
the applicants’ Convention rights, the Court notes that the moral
compensation was finally awarded in the latest set of judicial proceedings
only to three of the four applicants in the present case, despite the fact that
all four of the applicants demanded such compensation in all previous
proceedings. Moreover, having regard to the fact that the state registration
of the association had been delayed fo r a period of almost four years and
that the applicants had to defend their rights at numerous court hearings in
several sets of judicial proceedings, the Court finds that the amount of
EUR 705 awarded collectively to three a pplicants cannot be considered as a
full redress for the breach of the a pplicants’ Convention rights. In such
circumstances, the Court finds that the state registration of the association,
which clearly constituted a measure favourable to the applicants, was
nevertheless insufficient to deprive them of their “victim” status.
39. Accordingly, the Court rejects the Government’s objection as to the
applicants’ loss of victim status.
3. Domestic remedies
40. The Government submitted that, at the time of lodging of their
application with the Court, the appli cants had not exhausted the available
domestic remedies. In particular, they had not filed an additional cassation
complaint with the Plenum of th e Supreme Court. Moreover, the
Government contended that the applicants complained to the domestic
courts only about the allegedly unlawful actions of the Ministry of Justice,
and did not specifically raise a compla int that these actions amounted to a
violation of their right to freedom of association.

12 RAMAZANOVA AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN JUDGMENT
41. The applicants submitted that they were not required to file an
additional cassation complaint before lodging the present application with
the Court, because the Plenum of th e Supreme Court was not an effective
remedy. They also maintained that th eir complaint about the Ministry’s
unlawful “evading the registration of the non-governmental organisation”
constituted a substantive complaint a bout a violation of their freedom of
association.
42. The Court recalls that, where an applicant continues to exhaust the
domestic remedies after the lodging of his application but before the
decision on its admissibility is reached, the Court examines the question of
exhaustion of domestic remedies as of the time it is called upon to decide on
the admissibility of the complaint, an d not as of the time of lodging of the
application (see e.g. Yolcu v. Turkey (dec.), no. 34684/97, 3 May 2001).
43. The Court further recalls its pr evious finding that the additional
cassation procedure in the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Republic of
Azerbaijan did not constitute an ordinary and effective remedy which the
applicants were required to exhaust within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of
the Convention (see Babayev v. Azerbaijan (dec.), no. 36454/03,
27 May 2004). However, the Court observes that, in any event, after lodging
the present application with the Court, the applicants actually filed an
additional cassation complaint, which wa s rejected by the President of the
Supreme Court. Further, their constitutional complaint was declared
admissible and examined on the merits by the Constitutional Court, which
quashed the previous judgments and decisions and ordered a new
examination of the case. Thereafter, th e applicants once again exhausted all
the ordinary remedies available to them under the domestic law.
44. As for the Government’s argument that the applicants did not
expressly complain before the domestic authorities about a violation of their
right to freedom of associ ation, the Court considers th at their lawsuit against
the Ministry of Justice and demand for moral compensation constituted such
a complaint in substance. This is confirmed by the decision of the
Constitutional Court, which found that, under the domestic law, the subject
matter of the domestic litigation in the courts of general jurisdiction was the
alleged violation of the applicants ‘ right to freedom of association.
45. For these reasons, the Court rejects the Government’s objection as to
exhaustion of domestic remedies.
4. Conclusion
46. Having regard to the above conclu sions, the Court further notes that
the complaint is not inadmissible on a ny other grounds and that it is not
manifestly ill-founded within the m eaning of Article 35 § 3 of the
Convention. It must therefore be declar ed admissible in the part relating to
the events that took place after 15 April 2002.

RAMAZANOVA AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN JUDGMENT 13
B. Merits
1. The parties’ submissions
47. The Government argued that there was no interference with the
applicants’ freedom of association. Firstly, the Government noted that the
Ministry did not refuse to register the association. Instead, it merely
returned the association’s foundation doc uments to the founders so that the
latter could rectify the shortcomings a nd ensure that they complied with the
requirements of the domestic law. The Government contended that,
although “a refusal to register a public association might be regarded as a
violation of the right to freedom of association, th e delayed response to [an
application for state registration] is not a violation of this right.”
48. Secondly, the Government argued that the delay in registration only
resulted in the association’s temporary inability to acquire the status of a
legal entity. However, under the domestic law, lack of the status of a legal
entity did not prevent the associati on from continuing its activities and
entering into various contracts, such as the lease of premises, opening a
bank account, and ot her activities.
49. Furthermore, the Government noted that it was the obligation of the
association’s founders to ensure that the association’s foundation documents
complied with the legal requirements, which was a pre-requisite for the state
registration by the Ministry of Ju stice. The applicants, however,
“continuously refused to bring their constituent documents in conformity
with the existing legislation, and were seeking to obtain … registration on
the basis [of] documents [which cont radicted] the law. It was not the
obligation of the Ministry of Justice to rectify the errors, but to advise the
applicants to do this.”
50. As to the Ministry’s breaches of the statutory ten- and five-day
registration periods, the G overnment argued that it was merely a result of
the Ministry’s heavy workload.
51. The applicants argued that the delays in responding to their
registration requests, which were sign ificantly beyond the time-limits set by
the domestic law, constituted an interf erence with, and a violation of, their
right to freedom of associ ation. The applicants maintained that such delays
were in breach of the domestic law. Moreover, the applicants noted that the
Ministry cited a new, different defici ency in the association’s foundation
documents each time it returned the documents to the founders. However,
under the domestic law, the Ministry was obliged to identify all the
deficiencies after the first registrati on request, and after these deficiencies
had been rectified by the founders upon their second registration request, the
Ministry was obliged to issue a fina l decision, i.e. either register the
association or issue an official refusal to register it.

14 RAMAZANOVA AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN JUDGMENT
52. The applicants also noted that, without acquiring a status of a legal
entity, the association was unable to f unction properly and to engage in its
primary activities. Specifically, under th e domestic law, only duly registered
legal entities could be “grant” recipients. Taking into consideration that
“grants” were the main (and in most cases, the only) financial source for
non-governmental organisations’ activit ies, the association could not
properly function without a status of a legal entity. Moreover, only
state-registered non-governmental organi sations could enjoy tax preferences
under the taxation law and engage in a number of financial and other
activities.
53. Finally, the applicants disagreed with the Government’s submission
that they were not diligent in rectifyi ng the deficiencies in the association’s
foundation documents. They contended th at their prompt compliance with
each of the Ministry’s remarks and the number of registration requests
showed their diligence in trying to bring the documents into conformity
with the existing legislation.
2. The Court’s assessment
(a) Whether there has been an interference
54. The Court reiterates that the right to form an association is an
inherent part of the right set forth in Article 11. That citizens should be able
to form a legal entity in order to act collectively in a field of mutual interest
is one of the most important aspects of the right to freedom of association,
without which that right would be de prived of any meaning. The way in
which national legislation enshrine s this freedom and its practical
application by the authorities reveal the state of democracy in the country
concerned. Certainly States have a ri ght to satisfy themselves that an
association’s aim and activities are in c onformity with the rules laid down in
legislation, but they must do so in a manner co mpatible with their
obligations under the Conve ntion and subject to review by the Convention
institutions (see
Sidiropoulos and Others , cited above, p. 1614, § 40).
55. The ability to establish a legal en tity in order to act collectively in a
field of mutual interest is one of the most important aspects of freedom of
association, without which that right would be deprived of any meaning.
The Court has consistently held the view that a refusal by the domestic
authorities to grant legal entity stat us to an association of individuals
amounts to an interference with the appl icants’ exercise of their right to
freedom of association (see e.g. Gorzelik and Others v. Poland [GC], no.
44158/98, § 52, 17 February 2004;
Sidiropoulos , cited above, p. 1612, § 31;
and APEH Üldözötteinek Szövetsége and Others v. Hungary (dec.),
no. 32367/96, 31 August 1999).
56. The Court takes note of the Go vernment’s argument that, under the
domestic law applicable at that time, the return of foundation documents for

RAMAZANOVA AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN JUDGMENT 15
rectification of deficiencies did not constitute a formal and final refusal to
register the association or a total ba n on its activities. However, the Court
observes that, in the present case , the registration procedure was
substantially delayed due to the Ministry of Justice’s continuous failure to
respond to the applicants’ registration requests within the time-limits set by
the domestic law on state registration. Mo re specifically, since the date of
the lodging of the applicants’ firs t registration request on 9 April 2001,
almost four years passed until the applicants’ association was finally
registered on 18 February 2005. Almost th ree years of that total period fall
within the period after Azerbaijan’s ratification of the Convention on
15 April 2002.
57. Having regard to the facts of th e case, the Court observes that, each
time the registration documents were returned to the applicants, they
rectified the deficiencies noted in the Ministry’s letters and re-submitted a
new registration request in a prompt ma nner (usually within less than one
month after receiving the Ministry’s comments). On the other hand, the
Ministry delayed the response to each of the applicants’ registration requests
for several months. Accordingly, it cannot be disputed that the delay of
almost four years in the association’ s registration is to a large extent
attributable to the Ministry’s failure to respond in a timely manner.
58. The association was in fact depriv ed of a legal entity status for the
entire duration of this delayed registra tion procedure. Although the return of
documents for rectification of deficienci es may not be regarded as a formal
and final refusal to register the association under the domestic law, the
Court, leaving aside the domestic interpretations of “formal refusal”,
considers that the repeated failures by the Ministry of Justice to issue a
definitive decision on state registrati on of the association amounted to
de facto refusals to register the association.
59. Moreover, the Court notes that, ev en assuming that theoretically the
association had a right to exist pendi ng the state registration, the domestic
law effectively restricted the association’s ability to function properly
without the legal entity status. It could not, inter alia, receive any “grants”
or financial donations which constituted one of the main sources of
financing of non-governmental organisati ons in Azerbaijan (see Article 3 of
the Law On Grant ). Without proper financing, th e association was not able
to engage in charitable activities which constituted the main purpose of its
existence. It is therefore apparent that , lacking the status of a legal entity,
the association’s legal capacity was not identical to that of state-registered
non-governmental organisations.
60. The Court considers that, whereas the applicants were the founders
of the association, the significant dela ys in its state registration, which
resulted in its prolonged inability to acquire the status of a legal entity,
amounted to an interference by the author ities with the applicants’ exercise
of their right to fr eedom of association.

16 RAMAZANOVA AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN JUDGMENT
(b) Whether the interference was justified
61. Such interference will not be jus tified under the terms of Article 11
of the Convention unless it was “presc ribed by law”, pursued one or more
of the legitimate aims set out in paragraph 2 of that Article and was
“necessary in a democratic society” for the achievement of that aim or aims
(see e.g. Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95
and 28443/95, § 104, ECHR 1999-III).
62. The Court recalls that the expr ession “prescribed by law” requires
that the impugned measure should have some basis in domestic law and
refers to the quality of the law in question. The law should be accessible to
the persons concerned and formulated with sufficient precision to enable
them – if need be, with appropriate a dvice – to foresee, to a degree that is
reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action
may entail (see e.g. Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 30, ECHR
2004-I; Adalı v. Turkey , no. 38187/97, § 272, 31 March 2005; and
Rekvényi
v. Hungary
[GC], no. 25390/94, § 34, ECHR 1999-III). For domestic law to
meet these requirements, it must afford a measure of legal protection against
arbitrary interferences by public aut horities with the rights guaranteed by
the Convention. In matters affecting funda mental rights it would be contrary
to the rule of law, one of the basi c principles of a democratic society
enshrined in the Convention, for a legal discretion granted to the executive
to be expressed in terms of an unfe ttered power. Consequently, the law must
indicate with sufficient clarity the scope of any such discretion and the
manner of its exercise (see
Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria [GC],
no. 30985/96, § 84, ECHR 2000-XI; and Maestri, cited above, § 30).
63. The Court is aware of the fact that, since the time of the events
giving rise to the present complaint, certain amendments have been made to
the Azerbaijani legislation on state regi stration of legal entities. However,
for the purposes of this complaint, the Court will have regard to the
domestic law as it was applicable at the relevant time.
64. The Court observes that Article 9 of the Law On State Registration
of Legal Entities of 6 February 1996 set a ten-day time-limit for the
Ministry to issue a decision on the stat e registration of a legal entity or
refusal to register it. In the event the legal entity’s foundation documents
contained rectifiable deficiencies, the Ministry could return the documents
to the founders within the same ten-da y time-limit with the instructions to
rectify those deficiencies. After the registration request was re-submitted
following such rectification, the law pr ovided for a five-day time-limit for
official response. However, in the pr esent case, the Ministry delayed its
response to each registration request by several months. In particular, the
response to the applicants’ third regi stration request of 2 October 2001 was
delayed by more than nine months, whereas the law clearly required it to be
issued within 5 days. The response to the fourth registration request was

RAMAZANOVA AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN JUDGMENT 17
delayed by approximately six months. In such circumstances, the Court
cannot but conclude that the Ministry violated the procedural time-limits.
65. It follows that there was no basis in the domestic law for such
significant delays. The Government’s ar gument that the delays were caused
by the Ministry’s heavy workload cannot extenuate the undisputable fact
that, by delaying the examination of the registration requests for
unreasonably long periods, the Ministry breached the procedural
requirements of the domestic law. It is the duty of the Contracting State to
organise its domestic state-registratio n system and take necessary remedial
measures so as to allow the relevant authorities to comply with the
time-limits imposed by its own law and to avoid any unreasonable delays in
this respect (see, by analogy, Martins Moreira v. Portugal, judgment of
26 October 1988, Series A no. 143, p. 19, §§ 53-54; Unión Alimentaria
Sanders S.A. v. Spain , judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 157, p. 15,
§ 40; and Zimmermann and Steiner v. Switzerland , judgment of 13 July
1983, Series A no. 66, pp. 12-13, § 29). In the present case, there is no
evidence as to whether any measures have ever been undertaken by the
State authorities to remedy the situation at the material time. The Court
therefore considers that the Ministry ‘s alleged heavy workload was not a
good excuse for such unreasonable de lays as in the present case.
66. Furthermore, as to the quality of the law in question, the Court
considers that the law did not establish with sufficient precision the
consequences of the Ministry’s failure to take action within the statutory
time-limits. In particular, the law did not provide for an automatic
registration of a legal entity or any other legal consequences in the event the
Ministry failed to take any action in a timely manner, thus effectively
defeating the very object of the procedural deadlines. Moreover, the law did
not specify a limit on the number of times the Ministry could return
documents to the founders “with no action taken”, thus enabling it, in
addition to arbitrary delays in the exam ination of each separate registration
request, to arbitrarily prolong the w hole registration procedure without
issuing a final decision by continuously finding new deficiencies in the
registration documents and returning th em to the founders for rectification.
Accordingly, the law did not afford the applicants sufficient legal protection
against the arbitrary actions of the Ministry of Justice.
67. Having found that the Ministry of Justice breached the statutory
time-limits for the association’s state registration and that the domestic law
did not afford sufficient protection agai nst such delays, the Court concludes
that the interference was not “prescribed by law” within the meaning of
Article 11 § 2 of the Convention.
68. Having reached that conclusion, the Court does not need to satisfy
itself that the other requirements of Article 11 § 2 (legitimate aim and
necessity of the interference) have been complied with.

18 RAMAZANOVA AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN JUDGMENT
69. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 11 of the
Convention.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF AR TICLES 6 § 1 AND 13 OF THE
CONVENTION
70. The applicants compla ined that, contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention, the domestic courts had not been independent and impartial.
They noted that, in accordance with the law applicable at the time of the
events in question, the selection of candidates to judicial positions in
Azerbaijan was performed by the Judici al Legal Council under the President
of the Republic of Azerbaijan, presided over by the Minister of Justice. The
applicants alleged that, in such ci rcumstances, the judges of the domestic
courts could not be indepe ndent and impartial in the proceedings against the
Ministry of Justice, because their s ubsequent re-appointment to the courts
would depend on the discretion of the Mini ster of Justice as the Chairman of
the Judicial Legal Council. Furthermor e, in conjunction with Article 6 § 1,
the applicants complained under Article 13 of the Convention that the
domestic courts could not be considered as an effective remedy because
they had never ruled against the Minist ry of Justice in cases concerning the
delays in registration of non-governmental organisations.
71. The Court notes that these complaints are essentially the same as
those raised before the Court in the case of Asadov and Others v. Azerbaijan
((dec.), no. 138/03, 12 January 2006). In that case, the Court found that the
complaints were manifestly ill-founde d. In the absence of any substantially
new arguments or evidence submitted in the present case, the Court does not
find any reason to deviate from its reasoning in the Asadov and Others case.
72. It follows that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must
be rejected in accordance with Ar ticle 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
73. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols
thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to
the injured party.”

RAMAZANOVA AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN JUDGMENT 19
A. Damage
1. Pecuniary damage
74. The applicants claimed EUR 25,000 in respect of pecuniary damage.
They argued that, as a result of the Ministry’s failure to register the
association for almost four years, they could not secure any financial
resources for the association’s activity during the period of 2001-2005.
75. No observations were made in this respect by the Government.
76. The Court notes that the a pplicants have not submitted any
documentary evidence or any other jus tification for their claim. In such
circumstances, the Court cannot specu late whether the applicants would
indeed be able to secure any funding for their association if it had been
registered in a timely manner, and if so, in what amount. The Court,
therefore, rejects the applicants’ cl aim in respect of pecuniary damage.
2. Non-pecuniary damage
77. The applicants claimed EUR 10,000 each, making a total of
EUR 40,000, in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
78. The Government argued that this amount was unjustified and
excessive.
79. In the Court’s view, the arbitrary delay in the state registration of the
association must have been highly fr ustrating for the applicants as its
founders. Nevertheless, the amount claimed is excessive. Making its
assessment on an equitable basis, as required by Article 41 of the
Convention, the Court aw ards the applicants, collectivel y, the sum of
EUR 4,000 in respect of moral damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable
on this amount.
B. Costs and expenses
80. The applicants also claimed EUR 5,200 for the costs and expenses
incurred before the domestic courts and EUR 199 for those incurred before
the Court (including the translation, postal and photocopy expenses, but not
including any legal fees).
81. The Government noted that the applicants did not submit any proof
of expenses and that they should not be awarded any compensation for costs
and expenses in the domestic proceedings.
82. According to the Court’s case-la w, an applicant is entitled to
reimbursement of his costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown
that these have been actually and ne cessarily incurred and were reasonable
as to quantum. In the present case, rega rd being had to the information in its
possession and the above crit eria, the Court considers it reasonable to award

20 RAMAZANOVA AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN JUDGMENT
the sum of EUR 2,000 covering costs under all heads, plus any tax that may
be chargeable on this amount.
C. Default interest
83. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be
based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which
should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, TH E COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Declares the complaint concerning the applicants’ right to freedom of
association admissible and the remainder of the application
inadmissible;

2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 11 of the Convention;

3. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three
months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in
accordance with Article 44 § 2 of th e Convention, a total of EUR 4,000
(four thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and a total of
EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros) in resp ect of costs and expenses, to be
converted into New Azerbaijani manats at the rate applicable on the date
of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable on these amounts;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until
settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a
rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank
during the default period plus three percentage points;

4. Dismisses the remainder of the applican ts’ claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in wr iting on 1 February 2007, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren NIELSEN Christos ROZAKIS
Registrar President