EGMR Urteil vom 08.10.2026 – 57948/17

THIRD SECTION CASE OF JEYHAN v. AZERBAIJAN (Application no. 57948/17) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 8 October 2026 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Jeyhan v. Azerbaijan, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Úna Ní Raifeartaigh , President , Canòlic Mingorance Cairat, Vasilka Sancin , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 17 September 2026, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in an application against Azerbaijan lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 4 August 2017. 2. The applicant was represented by Mr A. Layij, a lawyer based in Azerbaijan. 3. The Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS 4. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 5. The applicant complained of the lack of justification for his pre-trial detention under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. He also raised a further complaint under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION 6. Relying on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the applicant complained that the domestic courts had failed to justify the necessity for the application of a preventive measure of pre-trial detention in his case. 7. In the leading cases of Farhad Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 37138/06, 9 November 2010; Isayeva v. Azerbaijan, no. 36229/11, 25 June 2015; and Zayidov v. Azerbaijan, no. 11948/08, 20 February 2014, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 8. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the domestic courts failed to justify the need for the applicant’s pre-trial detention. 9. This complaint is therefore admissible and discloses a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. REMAINING COMPLAINT 10. Relying on Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant also complained that his arrest was unlawful, arguing that there was insufficient and inadequate evidence against him. 11. The Court considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, this complaint either does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. 12. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 13. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Farhad Aliyev , cited above, Zayidov, also cited above, and Novruz Ismayilov v. Azerbaijan, no. 16794/05, 20 February 2014), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claims for just satisfaction. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Declares the complaint under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention; Holds that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; 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; Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claims for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 8 October 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya Maradudina Úna Ní Raifeartaigh Acting Deputy Registrar President APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (lack of justification for pre-trial detention) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Period of detention Length of detention Specific defects Amount awarded for non ‑ pecuniary damage per applicant (in euros) [1] Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application (in euros) [2] 57948/17 04/08/2017 Mustafa JEYHAN 1974 22/04/2017 to 21/06/2017 1 month and 29 days fragility of the reasons employed by the courts; failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint. 3,000 500 [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. [2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.