Communicated on 26 August 2016
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 76177/13
Kamran Sakhavat oglu BAYALIYEV
against Azerbaijan
lodged on 5 November 2013
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Kamran Bayaliyev, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1978 and lives in the Absheron District. He is represented before the Court by Mr V.N. Xasayev, a lawyer practising in Azerbaijan.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 28 August 2013 the applicant was charged by the police with an administrative offence, namely threatening and insulting V.I. When questioned by the police on the same day, the applicant was not given access to a lawyer of his own choice, and in protest he refused to accept the legal assistance of a State-funded lawyer.
On that same day the applicant was brought before the Absheron District Court.
There, he insisted on hiring a lawyer of his own choice, but the judge disregarded his request and the applicant once again refused the legal assistance of a State‑funded lawyer.
The first-instance court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to ten days’ administrative detention.
The applicant, then represented by a lawyer of his own choice, lodged an appeal before the Sumgayit Court of Appeal, arguing that the first-instance court had failed to properly assess the evidence presented in support of his conviction. He also complained that he had been deprived of access to a lawyer of his own choice, both at the police station and in court.
On 2 September 2013 the Sumgayit Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal, and at the same time reduced the duration of the administrative detention to five days, releasing the applicant on the basis that he had served his sentence.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3(c) of the Convention that his right to be represented by a lawyer of his own choosing was violated.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Did the applicant have a fair trial in the criminal proceedings against him, as required under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Was the applicant afforded an opportunity to defend himself through legal assistance of his own choosing, as required by Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s right to be defended by a lawyer of his own choice restricted during his questioning at the police station and the proceedings in the first-instance court? Did the applicant waive his right to defend himself through legal assistance? If yes, in what manner? Was the applicant in a position to foresee the consequences of his actions?
The Government are requested to submit copies of the entire case file from the domestic proceedings.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy