Published on 2 September 2024
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 20683/21
Huseyn ABDULLAYEV and Zeynab ABDULLAYEVA
against Azerbaijan
lodged on 14 April 2021
communicated on 16 July 2024
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns criminal proceedings against a businessman and former politician (the first applicant) and his mother (the second applicant).
The first applicant was a member of the National Assembly from 2005 until 2007, when his parliamentary immunity was lifted following his involvement in a physical altercation with another member of parliament during a parliamentary debate. In 2007 the first applicant was convicted of deliberate infliction of physical harm and hooliganism and sentenced to a conditional sentence of two years’ imprisonment (see Abdullayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 6005/08, 7 March 2019, for more detail).
In 2013 the first applicant moved to Germany. According to him, when in Germany, he released a music video critical of the Azerbaijani authorities. In the same year criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicants in Azerbaijan under the charges of illegal entrepreneurship, tax evasion and other offences allegedly committed when running their family business. A court order on the first applicant’s arrest was issued in the framework of those proceedings and an Interpol Red Notice was issued based on a request of the Azerbaijani law-enforcement authorities. Following this, still in 2013, the applicant applied for and was granted political asylum in Germany. In 2014 Interpol cancelled the Red Notice.
It appears that in 2016 the second applicant also left Azerbaijan, having allegedly illegally crossed the State border by using another person’s passport. In connection with this incident, she was later charged with the criminal offence of illegal border crossing and the first applicant and several other persons, including border guards, were charged with complicity in this offence.
In April 2018 the applicants went for a vacation in Türkiye, where the first applicant was arrested by the Turkish law-enforcement authorities and was handed over to the Azerbaijani authorities. Following a trial involving a total of nine defendants charged with complicity in several criminal offences, including both applicants, on 1 October 2019 the Baku Military Court convicted the applicants of, inter alia, illegal entrepreneurship, money laundering in large amounts, tax evasion in large amounts, abuse of power, service forgery and illegal border crossing. The first applicant was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment and the second applicant to a fine in the amount of 4,000 Azerbaijani manats. The court also granted the tax authorities’ claims against the applicants in respect of unpaid taxes and ordered confiscation of multiple real properties and various other assets belonging to them. Following a series of appeals, by a final decision of 14 October 2020 the Supreme Court upheld the applicants’ convictions and sentences.
In the meantime, on 26 August 2020 the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention issued Opinion no. 48/2020, finding that both Türkiye and Azerbaijan had breached a number of provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the ICCPR in respect of the first applicant, requesting both States to take steps to remedy the situation, and considering that the appropriate remedy would be for Azerbaijan to release the first applicant immediately and for both Azerbaijan and Türkiye to afford him an enforceable right to compensation and reparations.
Relying on Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicants complain of the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings against them, the alleged lack of independence and impartiality of the trial court, and the alleged unlawfulness of the confiscation measures applied to their assets. They also complain under Article 10 of the Convention that their criminal conviction was linked to the exercise by the first applicant of his freedom of expression. Lastly, they complain under Article 18 of the Convention, in conjunction with all of the above-mentioned Convention provisions, that their rights were restricted for purposes other than those prescribed under the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. In respect of the first applicant, Mr Huseyn Abdullayev, does the application concern matters which are essentially the same as those which were submitted to the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention? Can the proceedings before that institution be considered as another procedure of international investigation or settlement, within the meaning of Article 35 § 2 (b) of the Convention? Does the application contain relevant new information as compared to the matters submitted to that institution?
2. Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Was there a breach of the applicants’ right to a reasoned decision, in particular in respect of their arguments that the prescription periods for the criminal offences with which they were charged had expired?
3. Was the Baku Military Court which dealt with the applicants’ case independent and impartial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
4. Has there been an interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2 in pursuit of a legitimate aim?
5. Were the applicants deprived of their possessions in the public interest, and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law and in accordance with the principles of international law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was that deprivation necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of penalties? Did that deprivation impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants?
6. Were the restrictions imposed by the State in the present case, purportedly permitted under Articles 6 and 10 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by those provisions, contrary to Article 18 of the Convention?