Emin Huseynov v Azerbaijan (No. 2)

Parties (including notable third parties)

Mr. Emin Rafik oglu Huesyenov (Applicant); The Republic of Azerbaijan (Respondent)

---

Summary of Facts

The Applicant, Mr. Huseynov, was an Azerbaijani national (and citizen of no other State) and the chairman of the Institute for Reporters’ Freedom and Safety (‘IRFS’), an NGO specialising in the protection of journalists’ rights. In mid-2014, the Prosecutor General’s Office of Azerbaijan began proceedings against various NGOs, including IRFS, for irregularities in financial activities.

On 5 August 2014, Mr. Huseynov tried to flee Baku but was prevented from leaving the airport. Fearing arrest, he sought refuge in the Swiss Embassy. He was then charged with illegal entrepreneurship, large scale tax evasion, and abuse of power.

On 10 February 2015, still at the Swiss Embassy, Mr. Huseynov renounced his nationality in a declaration, made under duress. The Applicant claimed had been subject to life-threatening pressures and the risk of unfair imprisonment in Azerbaijan. His tax debts were paid off by Swiss authorities. The Azerbaijani Court revoked the order for his arrest. He then flew to Switzerland in June of 2015, and two weeks later the State Migration Service (Azerbaijan) informed him that his citizenship was terminated via Presidential order. He was not provided with reasons for the termination.

---

Legal Arguments

Legal Arguments by the Applicant

The Applicant claimed that he had been forced to renounce his Azerbaijani citizenship, which had amounted to an arbitrary deprivation of citizenship. He went on to argue that the deprivation of his citizenship by Azerbaijan violated Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘the Convention’) (inhuman or degrading treatment) as well as Article 8 (respect for private life), Article 10 (freedom of expression), and Article 13 (lack of an effective remedy).

Legal Arguments by the Respondent

The Government of Azerbaijan argued that the Applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies because he had failed to raise the complaints made to the Court before the domestic authorities.

The Government rejected the Applicant’s claim that he had been forced to renounce his citizenship. The Government also argued that the decision to grant the Applicant’s request to renounce his citizenship had been in accordance with the law.

Outcome

The Court found that there had been an arbitrary revocation of the Applicant’s citizenship, violating Article 8 of the Convention. The Court began their analysis by emphasising that they must follow a ‘consequence-based approach’, looking at what the consequences of the measure were for the Applicant, and whether the measure in question was arbitrary (see Usmanov v Russia). Here, the Court noted that the Applicant became stateless, with no valid ID document, creating uncertainty as to his legal status as an individual and directly affecting his social identity. This had a ‘significant impact on the Applicant’s enjoyment of his rights and directly affected his personal and social identity’.

The next step for the Court was to determine whether this was an arbitrary revocation. While Azerbaijan had argued that this was not arbitrary as the Applicant had himself applied to renounce his citizenship, the Court responded by utilising another principle, that they must ‘look beyond appearances and investigate the realities of the situation complained of’ (Shenturk v Azerbaijan; Shorazova v Malta). Therefore, it didn’t matter here whether the renunciation of citizenship was voluntary or forced.

The Court found that the deprivation was not in accordance with law as it was contrary to Azerbaijani domestic law and international treaties, and in particular the following provisions:

i) The Azerbaijani Constitution

Article 53 of the Constitution states that a citizen of the Republic of Azerbaijan may in no case be deprived of Azerbaijani citizenship.

ii) The Azerbaijani Law on Citizenship

Article 17 states that someone charged with a crime cannot have their citizenship renounced.

ii) 1951 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness (1954 Convention)

Article 7 states that a State cannot take away nationality unless the person concerned ‘possesses or acquires another nationality’. Article 8 states that a State cannot deprive a person of their nationality if such deprivation would render them stateless.

The Court found that Azerbaijan gave no heed to the fact that terminating the Applicant’s citizenship would leave him stateless (contrary to Article 7 of 1954 Convention). The Court expressly found is unnecessary to resolve the dispute whether it was forced or voluntary. The finding was based on the disregard of the statelessness-prevention safeguards, the legal framework and the lack of procedural safeguards. The Court stated that ‘loss of nationality is permitted where a person voluntarily renounces nationality in accordance with the law of a Contracting State, but only where the person concerned possesses or acquires another nationality’ (paragraph 61).

Continuing the assessment of whether the deprivation of citizenship was arbitrary, the Court found that the necessary procedural safeguards had not been followed. Given that the termination of the Applicant’s citizenship was a Presidential order, the Applicant was unable to appeal the decision, as the Constitutional Court had no jurisdiction. In this regard, the Court stated that:‘The Law on Normative Legal Acts explicitly provides that orders of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan are not normative legal acts’ (paragraph 41).

International, Regional and Domestic Instruments and Provisions Cited

Source	Instrument name	Provisions cited
Regional	European Convention on Human Rights	Article 8
International	United Nations Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness	Articles 1, 7, 8, 9
Domestic	Azerbaijani Constitution	Articles 52 (right to citizenship), 53, 109, 113, 130, 148, 151
Domestic	Azerbaijani Law on Citizenship	Articles 3, 16, 17, 26
Domestic	Azerbaijani Law on Normative Legal Acts	Article 3 (of 21 December 2010)
Domestic	Azerbaijani Law on the Constitutional Court	Article 34 (of 23 December 2003)

UNHCR Statelessness Guidelines cited

UNHCR Guidelines on Statelessness No. 5

Key paragraphs of the Guidelines referred to

[14]-[15], [22], [44]-[45], [76]-[78]

Court's application of Guidelines

At paragraph 61noting that a person can only lose their nationality if they have nationality with another State at that time.  Also noted for completeness that there can be no revocation on racial, ethnic, religious or political grounds, but did not find here that there was revocation on political grounds.

Available commentary

Guy Baldwin ‘The Lawfulness of Citizenship Deprivation: Comparing Australia and the UK’ (2025) 14 Laws 12.

• This article discusses the processes for citizenship deprivation in Australia and the UK, but also touches on the impacts of citizenship deprivation in respect of the rights guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights
• The author observes that a violation of Article 8 was found in this case where the consequence of the citizenship deprivation was statelessness, but he describes the consequences of this deprivation as ‘extreme’ and notes that, outside such circumstances, ‘it may be difficult to show that citizenship deprivation violates [the Convention]’ (page 15).