Azerbaijan closes case with single procedural strike Fake “victims” exposed at the ECHR

On April 29, 2025, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered its ruling on a case concerning the restriction of access to a number of online platforms, including azadliq.info, azerbaycansaati.tv, kanalturan.com, and meydan.tv. Although the publication of the decision on May 22 did not spark much public reaction, the ruling carries considerable legal weight, setting an important precedent that reinforces key principles regarding the admissibility of applications to international judicial bodies. 

The Court concluded that the complaint did not meet the established criteria and decided to reject it. This decision fully confirmed the soundness of Azerbaijan’s legal approach and outlined the boundaries of what is permissible in international human rights litigation — taking into account both the letter of the law and the broader logic of legal enforcement.

The essence of the case boiled down to the following: a group of individuals filed a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) over the restriction of access to the aforementioned websites, claiming it allegedly violated their rights under Article 10 of the European Convention, which guarantees freedom of expression.

However, the key factor in the Court’s decision lay in the procedural framework of the application itself. The Court pointed out that the submitted materials did not provide grounds for recognising the applicants as “victims” within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention. Furthermore, it was not established that these individuals had the right to act on behalf of the owners of the relevant websites.

Some of the mentioned platforms — such as azadliq.info and meydan.tv — were owned by registered legal entities, yet the complaint was submitted by other private individuals without a proper legal connection or confirmed authorisation. The Court viewed the applicants’ lack of procedural standing as sufficient grounds to reject the complaint, citing Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

According to paragraph 3 of this article, the Court shall declare an application inadmissible if it: does not meet admissibility requirements — for example, if it is submitted by an unauthorised party, does not concern a matter within the Court’s jurisdiction, relates to events outside the Convention’s time frame, or involves issues not covered by its provisions; if the complaint is manifestly ill-founded; or if there has been an abuse of the right of application. Paragraph 4 further stipulates that any complaint found inadmissible on such grounds shall be dismissed without further consideration.

In a context where international human rights mechanisms are often subject to political interpretation, this ruling carries fundamental significance. It affirms that the right to apply to the ECHR cannot be instrumentalised by groups or individuals lacking legal standing. Complaints unsupported by a legally substantiated status cannot be used as political leverage or a means of exerting pressure.

It is important to highlight that Azerbaijan’s legal position in this case was formulated with absolute precision. The arguments presented strictly adhered to the admissibility criteria, were grounded in the Court’s established jurisprudence, and were delivered without excessive rhetoric. As a result, this line of defence was accepted by the Court as well-founded.

Azerbaijan’s approach was not only correct under international law but also fully aligned with the institutional culture of dialogue between a state and the Court. This case was resolved entirely on a procedural basis. The Court found no grounds to proceed with the complaint, thereby confirming that Azerbaijan’s legal stance was properly constructed and fully compliant with international legal standards.

Thus, this ECHR ruling not only reinforces Azerbaijan’s legal position but, in a broader context, also demonstrates the resilience of the international legal order in the face of attempts to circumvent established procedures. It underscores that the protection of rights is only possible within the framework of the rule of law — with recognised legal standing, transparent argumentation, and respect for the institutional logic of judicial proceedings.

Caliber.Az typically does not attach much importance to the public activity of self-exiled “democracy fighters” — those stranded between foreign grants and delusions of political grandeur. These are the very individuals who freely pass judgment on Azerbaijan’s legal system while portraying themselves as champions of conventional legal order and European standards. Yet in this case, it is necessary to make a clear reminder: statements about the rule of law hold no legal weight unless they are accompanied by actual adherence to the law itself.