Published on 17 July 2023
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 19201/13
Pasha DADASHOV
against Azerbaijan
lodged on 27 February 2013
communicated on 27 June 2023
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns arrest and administrative conviction of the applicant for distributing leaflets and for alleged failure to obey the police officers.
On 21 January 2013 the applicant was arrested. According to the official records, the applicant was arrested because he had violated public order by illegally distributing leaflets and, when requested to stop, he had been rude towards the police. He had also been drunk during the incident.
According to the applicant, his leaflets were promoting (advertising about) internet-based TV and radio outlets both called Azerbaijani hour (Azərbaycan Saatı), the distribution of those leaflets did not violate any laws, he was not rude towards police officers and followed their order to go with them to a police office, and he had a small amount of alcohol at a birthday party on that day.
On 22 January the district court found the applicant guilty of the failure to comply with the lawful order of a police officer under Article 310.1 of the Code of Administrative Offences and sentenced him to seven days’ administrative detention. The appellate court dismissed his appeal and upheld the conviction.
The applicant complains under Articles 5 and 7 that his arrest and conviction was unlawful because, inter alia, the distribution of leaflets was not an offence under the Code of Administrative Offences. He also complains under Article 6 § 1 that the proceedings against him were in breach of various fair-trial guarantees because, inter alia, the decisions of the domestic courts lacked adequate reasoning.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? Was the applicant’s detention ordered “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”?
2. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Were the proceedings, taken as a whole, fair? Was the applicant’s right to a reasoned judgment respected?
3. Did the act of which the applicant was convicted constitute an offence under national law at the time when it was committed, as envisaged by Article 7 of the Convention?