6 SAMADBAYLI AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN JUDGMENT “The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.” 27. The Court notes that this complaint is linked to the one examined above and must therefore likewise be declared admissible. 28. However, in the light of its above finding concerning Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine whether in this case there has been a violation of Article 14 (compare Gahramanli and Others, cited above, §§ 89-91). V. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 34 OF THE CONVENTION 29. In a fax dated 9 September 2014 Mr I. Aliyev, the applicants’ representative, introduced a new complaint on behalf of the applicants. He claimed that the seizure from his office of all case files relating to the applicants’ pending cases before the Court, together with all his other case files, had amounted to a hindrance to the exercise of the applicants’ right of individual application under Article 34 of the Convention, the relevant parts of which read as follows: “The Court may receive applications from any person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals claiming to be the victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. The High Contracting Parties undertake not to hinder in any way the effective exercise of this right.” A. The parties’ submissions 30. The submissions made by the applicants, the Government and the third party, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), were identical to those made by the relevant parties in respect of the same complaint raised in Annagi Hajibeyli v. Azerbaijan (cited above, §§ 57-63). B. The Court’s assessment 31. In Annagi Hajibeyli, having examined an identical complaint based on the same facts, the Court found that the respondent State had failed to comply with its obligations under Article 34 of the Convention (ibid., §§ 64-79). The Court considers that the analysis and the finding made in the Annagi Hajibeyli judgment also apply to the present case and sees no reason to deviate from the finding that the deprivation of access for the applicants and their lawyer to their copies of the case files constituted in itself an undue interference and a serious hindrance to the effective exercise of the applicants’ right of individual petition.