Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan

Last updated
Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan
Courtroom European Court of Human Rights 05.JPG
Court European Court of Human Rights
Decided16 June 2015
Citation(s) European Convention on Human Rights - Articles 1, 8, 13, 14, 26, 30, 34, 35, 36
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingDean Spielmann, President, Josep Casadevall, Guido Raimondi, Mark Villiger, Isabelle Berro, Ineta Ziemele, Boštjan M. Zupančič, Alvina Gyulumyan, Khanlar Hajiyev, George Nicolaou, Luis López Guerra, Ganna Yudkivska, Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, Ksenija Turković, Egidijus Kūris, Robert Spano, Iulia Antoanella Motoc

Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan was an international human rights case regarding the rights of Armenian refugees displaced from former Soviet Azerbaijan because of the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. [1] The judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights on the case originated in an application (no. 40167/06) against the Republic of Azerbaijan lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by Minas Sargsyan on 11 August 2006. He was forced to flee his home in the village of Gulistan in Shahumyan region of former Soviet Azerbaijan, together with his family, because of the Azerbaijani bombardments of the village and was not allowed to return and unable to get any compensation from the Azerbaijani authorities. Even though the applicant died in 2009, as did his widow, Lena Sargsyan, in 2014, his children, Vladimir and Tsovinar Sargsyan, represented him in court to continue the proceedings. [2] [3]

Contents

The court ruled in favour of the applicant on 16 June 2015, confirming that the Azerbaijani Government had failed to assist him to have his property rights restored and/or to obtain compensation and awarded him the sum of 5,000 euros for damages and EUR 30,000 in costs and expenses. [1]

Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan, and a similar case, Chiragov and Others v. Armenia , were the first cases of civilians affected by the conflict, who attempted to obtain compensation for the harm caused to their life and livelihood by applying to the ECHR. The Grand Chamber issued judgments on both cases on the same day and in both cases ruled in favour of the applicants and against the respective governments. It also underlined the responsibility of Armenia and Azerbaijan to find a resolution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. [4]

Background and context

Sargsyan and his family were among the ethnic Armenian population of the former Azerbaijan SSR displaced in the course of the hostilities over the contested breakaway republic of Nagorno-Karabakh in 1992, which included attempts at ethnic cleansing. The conflict and the ensuing war resulted in hundreds of thousands of internally displace people and refugees on both sides.

The Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan case was seen as a "landmark case" in establishing the rights of refugees against governments, since ECHR had not considered a situation like this before. [5] [6] Viewed through the lens of non-discrimination: "the lesson of the ECHR ruling must surely be that those like Mr Sargsyan must be respected as individuals, and that discrimination against them, because of ethnic origin or for any other reason, must be prevented." [7]

Notably, the Court stated in its final judgment that: “The mere fact that peace negotiations are on-going [under the auspices of the OSCE [8] ] does not absolve the Government from taking other measures, especially when negotiations have been pending for such a long time.” It therefore called on the Azerbaijani government to establish a property claims mechanism for all displaced persons to have their property rights restored and/or to obtain compensation for the loss of those rights. [2]

Details of the case

Sargsyan claimed that he was forced to flee his home, together with his family, because of the Azerbaijani bombardments of his native village and that "the denial of his right to return to the village of Gulistan and to have access to his property there or to be compensated for its loss and the denial of access to his home and to the graves of his relatives in Gulistan amounted to continuing violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and of Article 8 of the Convention. Moreover, he alleged a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in that no effective remedy was available in respect to the above complaints. Finally, he alleged with a view to all complaints set out above, that he was subjected to discrimination on the basis of his ethnic origin and his religious affiliation in violation of Article 14 of the Convention". [9]

The Court ruled that impossibility for Sargsyan to access his property and not providing any alternative measures to restore his rights by the Government to provide him with compensation had placed an excessive burden on him, hence resulting in a continuing violation of his rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

While the court accepted Azerbaijan's argument that refusing Sargsyan access to his house could have been due to safety considerations, it held that the Government of Azerbaijan had a duty to take alternative measures in order to secure property rights. It also underlined that the fact that peace negotiations were on-going did not free the State from its duty to take other measures, referring to the principle of non-discrimination laid down in Article 3 of the Pinheiro Principles forbidding discrimination between internally displaced Azerbaijanis and ethnic Armenian refugees. [10]

The Court also concluded that impossibility for the applicant to access his home along with the cultural and religious attachment with his late relatives’ graves in Gulistan that he could not visit as the Government took no measures in order to address his rights or provide a compensation, had placed a disproportionate burden on him, thus resulting in a continuing violation of Article 8 of the convention. [11]

Hence the Court ruled that Azerbaijan had failed to make any provisions to help or compensate Sarsyan in respect of his Convention complaints. Furthermore, the Court's findings under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 8 of the Convention related to Azerbaijan's failure to create a mechanism for him to have his rights restored and to obtain compensation created a close link between the violations found under Article 1 and Article 8 on the one hand and the requirements of Article 13 on the other hand. It therefore concluded that there had also been a continuing breach of Article 13 of the convention.

Due to the exceptional nature of the case (ongoing conflict situation, difficulties in assessment of financial and non-financial damage, time aspects, etc) the Court's assessment of reasonable compensation in accordance with to Article 41 was not announced upon delivery of the judgement on 16 June 2015, but postponed to a later date. Despite the large number of unmeasurable factors in the case, on 12 December 2017 compensation was eventually awarded in the amount of 5,000 euros in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and EUR 30,000 in costs and expenses. [12] [13]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Robert Kocharyan</span> Former leader of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and Armenia

Robert Sedraki Kocharyan is an Armenian politician. He served as the President of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic from 1994 to 1997 and Prime Minister of Nagorno-Karabakh from 1992 to 1994. He served as the second President of Armenia between 1998 and 2008 and as Prime Minister of Armenia from 1997 to 1998.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Khojaly massacre</span> 1992 mass killing of Azerbaijanis during the First Nagorno-Karabakh War

The Khojaly massacre was the mass killing of Azerbaijani civilians by Armenian forces and the 366th CIS regiment in the town of Khojaly on 26 February 1992. The event became the largest single massacre throughout the entire Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Serzh Sargsyan</span> Former President and Prime Minister of Armenia

Serzh Azati Sargsyan is an Armenian politician who served as the third President of Armenia from 2008 to 2018, and twice as the Prime Minister of Armenia from 2007 to 2008 and again from 17 to 23 April 2018, when he was forced to resign in the 2018 Armenian revolution.

Nagorno-Karabakh is located in the southern part of the Lesser Caucasus range, at the eastern edge of the Armenian Highlands, encompassing the highland part of the wider geographical region known as Karabakh. Under Russian and Soviet rule, the region came to be known as Nagorno-Karabakh, meaning "Mountainous Karabakh" in Russian. The name Karabakh itself was first encountered in Georgian and Persian sources from the 13th and 14th centuries to refer to lowlands between the Kura and Aras rivers and the adjacent mountainous territory.

The Battle of Kalbajar took place in March and April 1993, during the First Nagorno-Karabakh War. It resulted in the capture of the Kalbajar District of Azerbaijan by Armenian military forces.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ethnic minorities in Azerbaijan</span>

This article focuses on ethnic minorities in the Republic of Azerbaijan.

<i>Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina</i>

Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina was a case decided by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in December 2009, in the first judgment finding a violation of Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights taken in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 thereof, with regard to the arrangements of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina in respect of the House of Peoples of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 with regard to the constitutional arrangements on the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Madrid Principles</span> 2009 proposed Nagorno-Karabakh peace settlements

The Madrid Principles were proposed peace settlements of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, proposed by the OSCE Minsk Group. As of 2020 the OSCE Minsk Group was the only internationally agreed body to mediate the negotiations for the peaceful resolution of the conflict. Senior Armenian and Azerbaijani officials have agreed on some of the proposed principles but have made little or no progress towards the withdrawal of Armenian forces from occupied territories or towards the modalities of the decision on the future Nagorno-Karabakh status.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Political status of Nagorno-Karabakh</span> Status of a disputed region in the Caucasus

The political status of Nagorno-Karabakh remained unresolved from its declaration of independence from the Soviet Union on 10 December 1991, to its September 2023 collapse. During Soviet times, it had been an ethnic Armenian autonomous oblast of the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic. Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, a conflict arose between local Armenians who sought to have Nagorno-Karabakh join Armenia and local Azerbaijanis who opposed this.

Anti-Armenian sentiment or Armenophobia is widespread in Azerbaijan, mainly due to the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh. According to the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), Armenians are "the most vulnerable group in Azerbaijan in the field of racism and racial discrimination." A 2012 opinion poll found that 91% of Azerbaijanis perceive Armenia as "the biggest enemy of Azerbaijan." The word "Armenian" (erməni) is widely used as an insult in Azerbaijan. Stereotypical opinions circulating in the mass media have their deep roots in the public consciousness.

Perinçek v. Switzerland is a 2013 judgment of the European Court of Human Rights concerning public statements by Doğu Perinçek, a Turkish nationalist political activist and member of the Talat Pasha Committee, who was convicted by a Swiss court for publicly denying the Armenian genocide. He was sentenced to 90 days in prison and fined 3000 Swiss francs.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2016 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict</span> April 2016 conflict in the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh

The 2016 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, also known as the Four-Day War, April War, or April clashes, began along the former Nagorno-Karabakh line of contact on 1 April 2016 with the Artsakh Defence Army, backed by the Armenian Armed Forces, on one side and the Azerbaijani Armed Forces on the other.

<i>Chiragov and Others v. Armenia</i> International human rights case

Chiragov v. Armenia was an international human rights case regarding the rights to property of Azeri nationals in the Nagorno-Karabakh region of former Soviet Azerbaijan. The judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights on the case originated in an application against the Republic of Armenia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by six Azerbaijani nationals on 6 April 2005. The applicants alleged, in particular, that they were prevented from returning to the district of Lachin in territory occupied by the respondent Government, that they were thus unable to enjoy their property and homes located there, and that they had not received any compensation for their losses.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 Ghazanchetsots Cathedral shelling</span>

The 2020 shelling of Ghazanchetsots Cathedral took place prior to the Battle of Shusha on 8 October, when the Holy Savior Cathedral of the city of Shusha, known as Ghazanchetsots Cathedral, was struck twice by missiles, resulting in the collapse of a part of the roof. Armenia accused the Azerbaijani Armed Forces over the shelling.

Azerbaijan has been a member of the Council of Europe, an international organization that focuses on strengthening democracy and human rights, since 2001. As a member, it has attracted attention for holding political prisoners, low implementation of verdicts of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), and bribing Council of Europe parliamentarians to suppress negative information about its human rights record. In 2017, the Committee of Ministers launched the first ever infringement proceeding against Azerbaijan after it refused to release opposition politician Ilgar Mammadov after a 2014 ECtHR verdict that his imprisonment was unlawful. There has also been criticism of Azerbaijan's continued membership by those who believe its lack of human rights protection undermines the credibility of the Council of Europe.

<i>Republic of Armenia v. Republic of Azerbaijan</i>

Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination is a court case at The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. The public hearings were held on the request for the indication of provisional measures submitted by the Republic of Armenia in the case concerning application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination on Thursday 14 and Friday 15 October 2021, at The Hague Peace Palace - the seat of the Court.

<i>Karen Petrosyan v. Azerbaijan</i>

Karen Petrosyan v. Azerbaijan was an international human rights case regarding the rights of Artush Petrosyan and his son Karen Petrosyan – an Armenian national from Chinari village, Tavush province of Armenia, who died while in captivity in Azerbaijan in 2014. The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights on the case originated in an application against the Republic of Azerbaijan lodged with the Court under the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by the applicant, Artush Petrosyan, on 25 April 2016. He Submitted that his son had been publicly humiliated, tortured and killed by decapitation by Azerbaijani State agents and that "his son’s body had not been repatriated in a timely manner, that there had been no effective investigation on and that the alleged violations had occurred as a result of discrimination based on ethnic origin".

<i>Saribekyan and Balyan v. Azerbaijan</i>

Saribekyan and Balyan v. Azerbaijan was an international human rights case filed by the parents of Manvel Saribekyan - an Armenian national from the Ttujur village in the Gegharkunik province of Armenia, who died while in captivity in Azerbaijan in 2010. The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights on the case originated in an application against the Republic of Azerbaijan lodged with the Court under the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms on 10 June 2011.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians</span> 2023 exodus from Nagorno-Karabakh

On 19–20 September 2023 Azerbaijan initiated a military offensive in the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region which ended with the surrender of the self-declared Republic of Artsakh and the disbandment of its armed forces. Up until the military assault, the region was internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan but governed and populated by ethnic Armenians.

References

  1. 1 2 Nancy E. Furman, Christopher Goebel, Maura E. Griffin, Bruce Janigian, Andrew J. Lorentz, Michael P. Scharf (June 2000). "The Nagorno-Karabagh Crisis: A Blueprint for Resolution". ssrn.com. Retrieved 19 August 2021.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. 1 2 "Sargsyan v Azerbaijan". European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC). Retrieved 2022-08-18.
  3. ↑ "European Court of Human Rights (40167/06) - Court (Grand Chamber) - Judgment (Merits) - CASE OF SARGSYAN v. AZERBAIJAN". www.stradalex.com. Retrieved 2022-08-19.
  4. ↑ "ECHR rules on Karabakh-related Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan case". news.am. Retrieved 2022-08-19.
  5. ↑ Capon, Felicity (2015-06-12). "Armenian family await European Court verdict in landmark case against Azerbaijan". Newsweek. Retrieved 2022-08-19.
  6. ↑ "Landmark Case at European Court of Human Rights: Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan". CIVILNET. 2015-06-14. Retrieved 2022-08-19.
  7. ↑ "ECHR ruling implications for Armenian refugees". Humanitarian Aid Relief Trust. Retrieved 2022-08-19.
  8. ↑ "Nagorno-Karabakh: Searching for a Solution | United States Institute …". archive.ph. 2020-08-05. Retrieved 2022-08-19.
  9. ↑ PRESS RELEASE issued by the Registrar of the Court - Chamber Judgment - HUDOC (10 Jun 2015). "Forthcoming Grand Chamber judgment in a case concerning complaints by Armenian refugee, displaced during the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict" (PDF). hudoc.echr.coe.int. Retrieved 18 Aug 2022.
  10. ↑ British and Irish Legal Information Institute (2022-01-01). "Sargsyan v Azerbaijan: ECHR 16 Jun 2015 - 40167/06 – Grand Chamber Judgment – Legal Summary, [2015] ECHR 652". swarb.co.uk. Retrieved 2022-08-18.
  11. ↑ "ECtHR - Case of Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan, Application no. 40167/06, 16 June 2015 | European Database of Asylum Law". www.asylumlawdatabase.eu. Retrieved 2022-08-18.
  12. ↑ Norwegian Center for Human Rights (12 March 2018). "EMD-bulletin – nytt fra menneskerettsdomstolen i Strasbourg" (PDF). www.jus.uio.no. Retrieved 18 Aug 2022.
  13. ↑ Caboor, Pieter Dirck G. (2021-04-26). "The echr Grand Chamber Judgment in the case of Mugemangango v. Belgium". International Journal of Parliamentary Studies. 1 (1): 147–153. doi:10.1163/26668912-bja10002. ISSN   2666-8904. S2CID   235505314.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.