Menu
Latest
Menu
Latest
ECHR ruling has implications for the Karabakh conflict and beyond.

ECHR ruling has implications for the Karabakh conflict and beyond.

7 July 2015

On 16 June 2015, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg gave a judgment in the case of Chiragov and Others v. Armenia (application no. 13216/05). The Court held, by a majority that there had been "a continuing violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights; a continuing violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention; and a continuing violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).

The case concerned the complaints by six Azerbaijani refugees that they were unable to return to their homes and property in the district of Lachin, in Azerbaijan, from where they had been forced to flee in 1992 during the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh.

There are currently more than one thousand individual applications pending before the Court which were lodged by persons displaced during the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh.

In the applicants' case, the Court confirmed that "Armenia exercised effective control over Nagorno Karabakh and the surrounding territories and thus had jurisdiction over the district of Lachin. The Court considered that there was no justification for denying the applicants access to their property without providing them with compensation. The fact that peace negotiations were ongoing did not free the Government from their duty to take other measures. What was called for was a property claims mechanism which would be easily accessible to allow the applicants and others in their situation to have their property rights restored and to obtain compensation."

You can read the ruling of the Court on the ECHR website here.

Initially, Armenia dismissed the ruling, and Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian, addressing a meeting of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in Yerevan two days later, said that only the OSCE Minsk Group had the mandate to concern itself with the Karabakh conflict and its settlement, and asked that other international organisations and institutions should not interfere in the process. Nalbandian said "The efforts towards the settlement of conflicts should be held in the frameworks of special negotiation formats and we should refrain from steps that could hinder these negotiation processes." You can read the speech of Minister nalbandian on the website of the Armenian Foreign Ministry, here.

It took Azerbaijan a while for it to give a proper assessment to the Court ruling. Azerbaijan is currently locked in a number of disputes with the Council of Europe, under whose jurisdiction the Court operates. The disputes concern primarily the domestic political situation in Azerbaijan, but also nuances in the Council's statements on the Karabakh conflict. Following the approval of a recent resolution on Azerbaijan in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) the head of the Delegation of Azerbaijan Samad Sayedov even said that Azerbaijan was considering leaving the Council of Europe. Currently Azerbaijan is also at odds with the OSCE and in the last days has closed its office in Baku.

However the ruling of the European Court in the Chiragov and others versus Armenia case is clearly of huge significance for Azerbaijan's claims for the restoration of the rights of refugees and IDPs displaced by the conflict in the 1990s.

Azerbaijan has now given its first comprehensive assessment of the ruling in a long interview that the Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan, Elmar Mammadyarov has given to the news agencies APA and Azertac. Mammadyarov described the judgement as "unprecedented" and having "far-reaching implications". The Azerbaijani Minister said "this is the first judgment of an authoritative Court that, while considering the merits of the case, provided impartial, third party analysis of the situation and legal assessment of the circumstances that led to the violation of fundamental human rights of Azerbaijani citizens guaranteed under the Convention. In particular, the Court reaffirmed the right of displaced persons to return to their homes or places of habitual residence and recalled the relevant standards and principles of international humanitarian and human rights law relating to the legal and technical issues surrounding housing and property restitution."

 Mammadyarov added that "the ruling of the Court reaffirmed that the right to return of the Azerbaijani population is undisputed and any solution will have to ensure effective exercise of this right. What should not be overlooked is that the said judgment of the Court's Grand Chamber is final and legally binding. The Council of Europe has a well-established mechanism to monitor the implementation of the Court's decisions. After the judgment of ECHR, the issue of protection of the rights of Azerbaijani population expelled from the occupied Nagorno-Karabakh and the other surrounding territories shall remain on the radar screen of the Council of Europe and its structures."

The Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan said that the judgement of the European Cout of Human Rights should also guide the OSCE Minsk Group co-Chair.

You can read the full interview of Foreign Minister Mammadyarov on the APA website here.

Commonspace.eu political editor said in a comment:

"The ruling of the ECHR took ten years to come, but for the displaced persons from the Karabakh conflict it is a welcome and highly significant development. For too long the plight of the refugees and IDPs from the conflicts in the South Caucasus has been marginalised as discussions centred on political and geo-political considerations, with too much emphasis on territory and not enough on people. The ECHR judgement changes all that - it brings people right back into the discussion, and all concerned need to take heed of this.

It took Azerbaijan three weeks to fully admit the importance and significance of the European court ruling, despite the fact that in this case the ruling was a welcome one for Baku. The ruling did not fit the narrative coming out of Baku in the last months which demonised Europe and European institutions and projected them as enemies of Azerbaijan.

On the other hand Armenia's attempt to downplay the ruling as irrelevant and to return the focus to the Minsk process is misplaced. As a member of the Council of Europe Armenia is obliged to abide by the Court's rulings. The ruling puts pressure on Armenia to clarify its policy towards the issue of refugees and IDPs.

The ruling of the ECHR therefore has implications all round, implications which will be with us for a long time."

Source: commonspace.eu

photo: The Grand Chamber of the European Court for Human Rights in Strasbourg.


 

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?
Trending

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

19 October 2026
Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Dennis Sammut

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest
Trending

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

7 September 2026
Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Dennis Sammut
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”
Trending

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

21 September 2026
There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)
Dennis Sammut