FIRST SECTION
Application no. 57737/11
Majid MAJIDLI against Azerbaijan
lodged on 26 August 2011
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Majid Majidli, is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1990 and lives in Baku. He is represented before the Court by Mr R. Mustafazade, a lawyer practising in Azerbaijan.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 31 July 2010 several opposition parties organized a demonstration in Baku in anticipation of the parliamentary elections of 7 November 2010.
According to the applicant, the organizers had given prior notice to the relevant authorities about the intended demonstration; however, it had not been authorized.
The demonstration was intended to be peaceful and was conducted in a peaceful manner, the participants demanding that the upcoming parliamentary elections be fair.
The applicant participated in the demonstration of 31 July 2010. The police, which allegedly positioned itself beforehand at the place where the public gathering was planned to be held, started to disperse the demonstration as soon as it began. The applicant was arrested and brought to a police office.
At 17:30 the police officers who arrested the applicant issued a “report on an administrative offence” (“inzibati xəta haqqında protokol”), which stated that “... [the applicant] participated in a demonstration unlawfully held at around 17:00 on 31 July 2010, on Nizami Street, located in the Sabail district. [The applicant] deliberately failed to comply with the lawful orders of a police [officer]. By this he committed an administrative offence under Article 310.1 of the Code of Administrative Offences”.
According to the applicant, his right to have a lawyer was not properly explained to him, he was not represented by a lawyer during the arrest, and he was not served with the copy of the report on an administrative offence issued against him.
On the same day the applicant was brought before the judge of the Sabail District Court in connection with “the deliberate non-compliance with the lawful order of a police officer, executing his duties to protect public order, not to hold an unlawful demonstration on Nizami Street”. The Sabail District Court convicted the applicant under Article 310.1 of the Code of Administrative Offences and sentenced him to ten days’ “administrative detention”.
According to the applicant, the hearing before the first-instance court lasted only a few minutes. The applicant was not represented by a lawyer before the Sabail District Court and was not provided with a copy of the court’s decision.
The applicant lodged an appeal before the Baku Court of Appeal arguing that his conviction was in violation of his rights because the demonstration in which he participated was notified to the authorities and was peaceful. He asked the court to quash the first-instance court’s decision of 31 July 2010. On 20 August 2010 the Baku Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal and upheld the decision of the first-instance court, finding that the applicant, by participating in an unlawful demonstration, deliberately refused to comply with the lawful orders of police officers.
On 28 February 2011 the Sabail District Court sent the applicant a copy of the report on an administrative offence, the first-instance decision of 31 July 2010 and the Baku Court of Appeal’s decision of 20 August 2010, following his complaints about the authorities’ failure to serve him the mentioned documents in a timely manner.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that in the proceedings concerning the administrative offence he did not have a fair hearing because he was not given sufficient time and facilities to prepare his defence; that he was not represented by a lawyer either when he was arrested or before the first-instance court; and that only the police officers who arrested him were questioned as witnesses.
The applicant complains that he was arrested and prosecuted for participation in a peaceful demonstration, in breach of Article 11 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicant comply with the six-month time-limit for lodging the application?
2. Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its criminal head applicable to the proceedings in the present case? If so, did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the charge against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of equality of arms respected as regards provision of sufficient time and facilities for preparation of defence, possibility to defend oneself through legal assistance, and questioning of witnesses?
3. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of peaceful assembly within the meaning of Article 11 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 11 § 2?
4. The parties are requested to submit copies of all documents relating to the administrative proceedings, including the transcripts of the hearings and the applicant’s appeals.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy