AGAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN and 6 other applications

Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi

Karar Metni

Communicated on 3 April 2019

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 9327/16
Samir AGAYEV against Azerbaijan
and 6 other applications
(see list appended)

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants in cases nos. 9327/16, 9594/16, 9327/16, 11504/16 and 11601/16 are Azerbaijani nationals.

The applicants in cases nos. 11071/16 and 11573/16 are Turkish nationals.

The applicants, a list of whom is set out in the appendix, are represented before the Court by Mr R. Mustafazade, a lawyer practising in Azerbaijan.

The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

The applicants are the followers of Nursist teaching in Islam (originated in writings of Said Nursi, a Sunni Muslim theologian).

On 19 September 2015, while the applicants were present at the house owned by one of the applicants, the house was raided by police officers. At around 9.30 p.m. the applicants were taken to the Yasamal District Police Station No. 27 together with more than 70 people who were present at the gathering.

According to the applicants in cases nos. 9327/16, 9594/16, 9327/16, 11504/16 and 11601/16, they had been detained until 2 p.m. the next day, 20 September 2015, when they had been escorted from the police station to the Yasamal District Court, while the rest of the detainees were released at 4 a.m of the same date.

According to the applicants in cases nos. 11071/16 and 11573/16, they had been released at 3 a.m. the next day, 20 September 2015, while the rest was released at 4 a.m. and all of them were ordered to return to the police station in the morning. As ordered, they returned to the police station at 10.30 a.m. on 20 September 2015, where they waited until 3 p.m. when they were taken to the Yasamal District Court.

On the same date, the Yasamal District Court, by separate decisions, found applicants in cases nos. 9327/16, 9594/16, 9327/16, 11504/16 and 11601/16 guilty of violating the legislative rules on organising and holding religious meetings under Article 299.0.2 of the Code of Administrative Offences (hereinafter referred to as “the CAO”) and fined each of them 1500 manats (AZN – approximately 1300 euros (EUR) at the time) The applicants in cases nos. 11071/16 and 11573/16 had been found guilty of an administrative offence under Article 300.0.4 of the CAO (religious propaganda by foreigners), were fined 2000 manats each (approximately 1600 euros at the time) and ordered to be deported from the respondent State.

On an unspecified date the applicants lodged appeals against the decisions of the first-instance. The applicants argued that they had not been engaged in unlawful activities and had a peaceful gathering. They further argued that they had not been provided with an adequate time to prepare their defence and a proper legal representation during the proceedings at the first-instance, and that resulted with unjustified and unreasoned decisions. The applicants in cases nos. 11071/16 and 11573/16 also disputed the decision of the first-instance court in part of their deportation. They further argued that they had not been provided with assistance of a translator and lawyer during their arrest and subsequent interrogation.

On various dates in October 2015 the Baku Court of Appeal by separate decisions dismissed the appeals and upheld the decisions of the first-instance court. The appellate court found that, contrary to the arguments of the applicants that they had gathered only for having a mutual prayer, the fact that there were around 30 to 35 people at the apartment during the police raid, which was also confirmed by the statements of the applicants and other witnesses given during the proceedings, confirmed that the purpose of the gathering was an unauthorised religious meeting.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that their arrest and detention at the police station were without just cause and in breach of their right to liberty.

The applicants complain under Article 6 § 3 (b) and (c) of the Convention that they were not provided by the adequate time for the preparation of their defence and sufficient legal assistance in the criminal proceedings against them.

They further complain under Article 9 of the Convention that their administrative conviction amounted to an unlawful interference of the domestic authorities with their rights to freedom of religion.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Were the applicants deprived of their liberty on 19 September 2015 in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the deprivation of liberty fall within paragraphs (a)-(e) of this provision? Was a detention record (İnzibati tutma haqqında protocol) ever compiled? If it was, the Government are requested to submit copies of them in respect of each applicant, as well as any other documents relating to the applicants’ detention.

2. Did the applicants have a fair trial in the criminal proceedings against them as required under Article 6 of the Convention? In particular, were the applicants afforded adequate time and facilities to prepare their defence, as required by Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention? Were they afforded an opportunity to defend themselves through legal assistance of their own choosing or provided with sufficient free legal assistance in the interests of justice, as required by Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention?

3. Has there been an interference with the applicants’ freedom of religion within the meaning of Article 9 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 9 § 2 of the Convention?

The Government are requested to submit copies of all documents relating to the administrative proceedings, including the records on administrative offence and the transcripts of the hearings.

APPENDIX

No.

Application

no.

Lodged on

Applicant name

date of birth

place of residence

Represented by

9327/16

01/02/2016

Samir Ramazan oglu AGAYEV

29/04/1978

Ismayilli