Global Freedom of Expression

Español العربية

Ismayil Asgar oglu Ismayilov v. Azerbaijan

Closed Expands Expression

Key Details

  • Mode of Expression
    Public Assembly
  • Date of Decision
    January 17, 2008
  • Outcome
    Dismissed, Monetary Damages / Fines
  • Case Number
    4439/04
  • Region & Country
    Azerbaijan, Europe and Central Asia
  • Judicial Body
    European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)
  • Type of Law
    International/Regional Human Rights Law
  • Themes
    Freedom of Association and Assembly / Protests, Political Expression

Content Attribution Policy

Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy:

  • Attribute Columbia Global Freedom of Expression as the source.
  • Link to the original URL of the specific case analysis, publication, update, blog or landing page of the down loadable content you are referencing.

Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.

Case Analysis

Case Summary and Outcome

Ismayil Asgar oglu Ismayilov attempted to register a public association that he founded. The government of Azerbaijan delayed the registration beyond the national statutory limits and eventually denied the application all together. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that the delays constituted a violation of Article 11 that guarantees the right to public association.


Facts

Azerbaijan’s national law prescribes a ten day period for the Ministry of Justice to respond to a registration request from an organization. In this case, the Ministry took several months to respond to the plaintiff’s registration requests.

On September 30, 1999, the plaintiff applied to register his public association with the Ministry of Justice. On February 11, 2000, the Ministry returned the registration application, with a note that the association’s charter failed to meet a provision of Azerbaijan’s law on public associations. The association redrafted the charter per the Ministry’s note and resubmitted the application on July 24, 2000. On December 28, 2000, the ministry refused the registration again on the basis of the charter violating Azerbaijan’s law on NGOs. The plaintiffs revised their charter and submitted the application again on August 28, 2002, and received another denial in December 2002 on the basis of the charter failing a provision of the NGO law.

In the meantime, on October 25, 2002, the plaintiff filed a suit with a district court against the Ministry of Justice for failing to register his association within the legal time limits. The court ruled that the association’s charter failed to comply with Azerbaijan’s national legislation and thus the Ministry’s actions were lawful. The plaintiff appealed but the district court’s decision was upheld through the higher judicial branches.


Decision Overview

The ECtHR determined that failure to register an organization within the statutory time limits amounted to a de facto refusal to register the plaintiff’s association. Without a legal status, the association did not have the legal capacity to engage in its activities, even if some limited activities were possible. Moreover, although Azerbaijan amended its laws pertinent to state registration of entities, the ECtHR reviewed the domestic law as it was applicable in the time of the case.

Interference with Article 11 is permissible as long as it is prescribed by law and pursues legitimate aims set out in the same Article. In this case, the delays were not prescribed by law because the Ministry took months to respond to registration requests, when the law set a ten day limit. Moreover, the Court determined that Azerbaijan’s legislation did not offer protection against delays.

Thus, the ECtHR found that the extended delays amounted to state interference with the plaintiff’s Article 11 rights.


Decision Direction

Quick Info

Decision Direction indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case.

Expands Expression

The ruling protects public associations and NGOs from undue government delays in their registration.

Global Perspective

Quick Info

Global Perspective demonstrates how the court’s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions.

Table of Authorities

Related International and/or regional laws

Case Significance

Quick Info

Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.

The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

The decision protects public associations and NGOs from undue government delays in their registration.

Official Case Documents

Attachments:

Have comments?

Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.

Send Feedback