Introduction
On 25 August 2026, the European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee, delivered its judgment in the case of Alishov and Others v. Azerbaijan (ECLI:CE:ECHR:2026:0825JUD002552723). The case concerned three Azerbaijani nationals — Ali Alishov, Adil Huseynov, and Bahman Abbasov — who lodged applications against the Republic of Azerbaijan under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
The central issues before the Court were twofold: first, whether the length of the criminal proceedings brought against the applicants was compatible with the reasonable-time requirement enshrined in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention; and second, whether the continued application of a preventive measure placing the applicants under police supervision, which effectively prevented them from leaving Azerbaijan, was consistent with Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention.
This article examines the factual background of the case, the procedural history before domestic courts, the Court's assessment of admissibility and the merits, and the broader significance of the judgment within the Council of Europe's human rights framework.
Factual background
Criminal proceedings against each of the three applicants were instituted on different dates in 2015 under Article 178.3.2 of the Criminal Code of Azerbaijan, which concerns fraud causing large-scale damage. The proceedings were unrelated to one another, yet their procedural trajectories followed a strikingly similar pattern.
In respect of the first and second applicants, the Narimanov District Court remanded them in custody on 3 November 2015 and 15 May 2015 respectively. The third applicant was placed under police supervision as a preventive measure on 25 May 2015, without being remanded in custody.
The first and second applicants were subsequently released from detention — the second applicant on 30 May 2016 and the first applicant on 21 October 2016 — at which point the preventive measure of police supervision was applied to them as well. From those dates onward, the judgment records that no investigative actions were carried out in the proceedings against any of the applicants.
The practical consequence of the police supervision measure was that the applicants were effectively prevented from leaving Azerbaijan, a restriction that persisted throughout the period under review. By the time of the parties' latest correspondence with the Court in 2025, the proceedings remained at the pre-trial stage — more than ten years after they had commenced.
Domestic proceedings and exhaustion of remedies
On different dates in 2023, the applicants lodged complaints with the ordinary courts under the domestic procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of procedural actions or decisions by investigating authorities. Through those complaints, they challenged both the length of the criminal proceedings and the continued application of the police supervision measure.
The Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants' complaints by final decisions dated 5 June 2023 in respect of the first and second applicants, and 14 September 2023 in respect of the third applicant. The appellate court held that there had been no unlawful procedural actions or decisions by the investigating authorities.
Before the European Court, the Azerbaijani Government raised a preliminary objection in relation to the second applicant, arguing that he had failed to exhaust domestic remedies with respect to his complaint under Article 6 § 1, on the basis that he had not raised the issue of excessive length before the domestic courts at any stage. The Court rejected this objection, noting both that doubts arose as to the existence of any domestic remedy capable of providing effective redress for the alleged breach — referring in this regard to its earlier case-law in Hajibeyli v. Azerbaijan — and that, in any event, the second applicant had in fact raised his complaint concerning the length of proceedings before the appellate court.
The Court's assessment under Article 6 § 1: reasonable time requirement
Having joined the three applications by reason of their similar subject matter, the Court proceeded to examine them in a single judgment. It declared the complaint under Article 6 § 1 admissible, finding that it was not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention and was not inadmissible on any other grounds.
The Court recalled the general principles governing the assessment of the reasonableness of the length of proceedings, as set out in its case-law and summarised in Hajibeyli v. Azerbaijan. Those principles require that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings be assessed in the light of the particular circumstances of each case, having regard to the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicants, the conduct of the competent authorities, and what was at stake for the applicants. The Court also cited Vegotex International S.A. v. Belgium and Pélissier and Sassi v. France as further authorities on these criteria.
Applying those principles, the Court observed that the criminal proceedings had commenced in 2015 and remained at the pre-trial stage more than ten years later, at the time of the parties' latest correspondence in 2025. It further considered that much was at stake for the applicants, who had suffered a feeling of uncertainty about their future given that they risked a criminal conviction and had been subject to police supervision throughout that period. The Court drew on its reasoning in Hajibeyli in this regard.
Notably, the judgment records that since the applicants were released from detention or placed under police supervision — events that occurred in 2015 and 2016 — no investigative actions had been carried out in the proceedings against them. This prolonged inactivity on the part of the investigating authorities is a central feature of the Court's analysis of the conduct of the competent authorities, one of the key criteria under the reasonable-time assessment.
The complaint under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4: freedom of movement
In addition to their complaint under Article 6 § 1, the applicants complained under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention about the preventive measure of police supervision, which had the practical effect of preventing them from leaving Azerbaijan.
The judgment records that this complaint formed part of the subject matter of the case and was raised before the Court alongside the length-of-proceedings complaint. The police supervision measure had been applied continuously — in the case of the third applicant from as early as 25 May 2015, and in the case of the first and second applicants from 2016 — without any investigative activity taking place in the intervening years.
The combination of the prolonged duration of the measure and the absence of any investigative steps during that period forms the factual foundation for the applicants' grievance under Protocol No. 4. The domestic courts, including the Baku Court of Appeal, had declined to discontinue the measure, finding no unlawful procedural actions or decisions by the investigating authorities.
Procedural aspects: joinder and committee formation
The Court found it appropriate to examine the three applications jointly in a single judgment, having regard to their similar subject matter. This procedural step reflects the Court's established practice of joining cases that raise substantially the same legal and factual questions, thereby promoting consistency and efficiency in its adjudication.
The case was examined by the Third Section sitting as a Committee composed of three judges: Mateja Đurović as President, Lətif Hüseynov, and Canòlic Mingorance Cairat, with Olga Chernishova serving as Deputy Section Registrar. The Committee format is typically used for cases that raise issues already addressed in the Court's well-established case-law, which is consistent with the Court's reliance in this judgment on the principles set out in Hajibeyli v. Azerbaijan.
The judgment is described as final but subject to editorial revision, in accordance with the Court's standard practice for judgments delivered in this format.
Significance and broader context
The judgment in Alishov and Others v. Azerbaijan contributes to a body of case-law in which the Court has examined the compatibility of prolonged pre-trial criminal proceedings in Azerbaijan with the reasonable-time guarantee of Article 6 § 1. The Court's reference to Hajibeyli v. Azerbaijan as the leading authority on the relevant principles underscores the continuity of its approach to such cases.
The case also illustrates the intersection between the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time and the right to freedom of movement. Where criminal proceedings remain stalled at the pre-trial stage for an extended period, and where a restrictive preventive measure such as police supervision is maintained throughout that period without any investigative activity, the cumulative effect on the individuals concerned can engage multiple Convention rights simultaneously.
The fact that the domestic courts, including the Baku Court of Appeal, dismissed the applicants' complaints on the basis that no unlawful procedural actions had been identified, while the Court found that doubts arose as to the existence of any effective domestic remedy, highlights a recurring tension in cases of this kind between the formal legality of procedural inaction and the substantive requirements of the Convention.
For individuals subject to prolonged criminal investigations accompanied by restrictive preventive measures, this judgment serves as an illustration of the standards the Court applies when assessing whether the reasonable-time requirement has been met and whether restrictions on freedom of movement can be justified over an extended period in the absence of investigative progress.
Conclusion
The judgment of 25 August 2026 in Alishov and Others v. Azerbaijan addresses two interconnected grievances arising from criminal proceedings that had remained at the pre-trial stage for more than a decade without any investigative activity: the excessive length of those proceedings under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, and the continued application of a police supervision measure that prevented the applicants from leaving Azerbaijan under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4.
The Court's admissibility findings, its rejection of the Government's exhaustion objection, and its application of the established criteria for assessing the reasonableness of the length of proceedings — including the complexity of the case, the conduct of the parties and the authorities, and what was at stake for the applicants — reflect a consistent and principled approach grounded in its prior case-law, particularly Hajibeyli v. Azerbaijan.
Persons seeking to understand their rights under the Convention in comparable circumstances should consult the full text of the judgment, available at the official HUDOC database of the European Court of Human Rights, and should seek qualified legal advice appropriate to their specific situation.
This article is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Sources consulted
- CASE OF ALISHOV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN - European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe
Published by Synojus International
Back to English publications