Background
Three Azerbaijani nationals faced unrelated fraud investigations initiated in 2015. Two were initially remanded in custody and later released under police supervision; the third was placed under police supervision from the outset. The measure effectively prevented each applicant from leaving Azerbaijan.
After 2016, no investigative steps were taken in any of the cases. In 2023, the applicants challenged both the length of the proceedings and the continuing police-supervision measure, but the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed their complaints. By the parties’ latest correspondence with the Strasbourg Court in 2025, all three cases remained at the pre-trial stage.
The Court’s Holding
Unanimously, the Court held that the criminal proceedings had exceeded the “reasonable time” requirement under Article 6 § 1. Although the Government relied on the alleged complexity of large-scale financial fraud, each applicant faced one charge, no procedural action appeared to have been taken since 2016, and an overall period exceeding ten years could not be justified by complexity alone. The Court also rejected the Government’s exhaustion objection concerning the second applicant.
The Court further held that the effective restrictions on the applicants’ ability to leave Azerbaijan violated Article 2 of Protocol No. 4. It did not need to decide whether the interference was prescribed by law. Even assuming it pursued legitimate aims, maintaining the restriction for around ten years was disproportionate, particularly where the authorities had made no progress in the investigations and identified no special circumstances such as flight attempts, non-cooperation, or delay caused by the applicants.
Key Takeaways
- Criminal investigations left at the pre-trial stage for more than ten years breached Article 6 § 1 in these circumstances.
- Case complexity cannot by itself justify prolonged investigative inactivity or a decade-long travel restriction.
- Each applicant received EUR 5,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 500 in costs and expenses.
Why It Matters
The judgment reinforces that preventive measures effectively barring international travel require continuing, individualized justification. A restriction imposed during criminal proceedings cannot simply remain in force throughout an investigation that has ceased to advance.
It also confirms the Court’s scrutiny of prolonged pre-trial investigations in Azerbaijan where the uncertainty of pending criminal charges is compounded by ongoing limits on freedom of movement.