Communicated on 11 July 2017
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 55503/15
Emin ALAKBAROV against Azerbaijan
and 6 other applications
(see list appended)
The applicants, whose particulars are listed in the appendix, are Azerbaijani nationals 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 followers of the Nursist teachings of Islam, which originated in the writings of Said Nursi, a Sunni Muslim theologian.
On 2 June 2015, while the applicants were present at a house jointly owned (leased) by the applicants in cases nos. 55503/15 and 55512/15, the house was raided by around twenty-five to thirty people, both uniformed police and civil servants. The applicants and some other people, fifteen in total, were taken to the Gadabay District Police Department. They were released the next day in the early hours and ordered to return to the police station at 9 a.m.
As ordered, the applicants returned to the police station at 9 a.m. on 3 June 2015, where they waited until 5 p.m. when they were taken to the Gadabay District Court.
On the same date, by separate decisions, the Gadabay District Court found the applicants guilty of violating public order under Article 296 of the Code of Administrative Offences (hereinafter “the CAO”), and fined them 50 manats (AZN – approximately 40 euros (EUR) at the time). The applicant in case no. 55512/15 was found guilty of violating the legislative rules on organising and holding religious meetings under Article 299.0.2 of the CAO and fined AZN 1,500 (approximately EUR 1,300 at the time).
On an unspecified date the applicants lodged appeals against the decisions of the first-instance court. The applicants argued that they had not engaged in any unlawful activities, and had had a peaceful gathering which had not disturbed any neighbours. They further argued that they had not been provided with adequate time to prepare their defence and obtain proper legal representation during the first-instance proceedings, and this had resulted in decisions which were unjustified and devoid of reasoning. The applicant in case no. 55512/15 also argued that Article 299.0.2 of the CAO could only apply to religious organisations and the events which they organised, whereas he had simply hosted guests, and had never had any intention of establishing an organisation or holding a meeting.
In June and July 2015, by separate decisions, the Ganja Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals and upheld the decisions of the first-instance court. The appellate court stated that, contrary to the applicants’ arguments that they had only gathered for group prayer, the fact that there had been around thirty to thirty-five people at the apartment during the police raid ‑ something which had also been confirmed by the statements of the applicants and other witnesses given during the proceedings – confirmed that the gathering had been an unauthorised religious meeting.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that their arrest and detention for fourteen hours 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 with adequate time to prepare their defence and obtain proper 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 by the domestic authorities with their right to freedom of religion.
COMMON QUESTIONS
1. Were the applicants deprived of their liberty on 2 June 2015 in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the deprivation of liberty fall within sub-paragraphs (a)-(e) of this provision? Was a detention record (İnzibati tutma haqqında protocol) compiled? If so, the Government are requested to submit copies of each applicant’s detention record, 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 proper 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 administrative-offence records and the transcripts of the hearings.
APPENDIX
No.
Application
no.
Lodged on
Applicant name
date of birth
place of residence
Represented by
55503/15
19/10/2015
Emin ALAKBAROV
27/06/1981
Gadabay
Ruslan MUSTAFAZADE
55507/15
19/10/2015
Javanshir ISMAYILOV
29/05/1991
Sumgayit
Ruslan MUSTAFAZADE
55510/15
19/10/2015
Elmir JABRAYILOV
17/07/1992
Sumgayit
Ruslan MUSTAFAZADE
55512/15
19/10/2015
Sabuhi MAMMADOV
11/07/1978
Gadabay
Ruslan MUSTAFAZADE
55520/15
19/10/2015
Samir HUSEYNOV
08/08/1988
Agstafa
Ruslan MUSTAFAZADE
55524/15
19/10/2015
Rovshan GASIMOV
17/03/1982
Gadabay
Ruslan MUSTAFAZADE
55531/15
19/10/2015
Parvin YUNUSOV
19/08/1995
Yevlakh
Ruslan MUSTAFAZADE
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy