Published on 21 June 2021
FIFTH SECTION
Applications nos. 13509/12 and 64801/12
Afgan Sabir oglu MUKHTARLI against Azerbaijan
and Gulaga Gulam oglu ASLANLI against Azerbaijan
lodged on 19 November 2011 and 9 August 2012 respectively
communicated on 1 June 2021
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES
The applications concern the arrest, detention and subsequent administrative conviction of the applicants, prior to a demonstration, on charges of minor hooliganism. After being held at the police station the applicants were brought before the first instance court, which fined the applicant (a journalist) in application number 13509/12 to an amount of 50 Azerbaijani manats (AZN) (at the material time approximately 25 euros (EUR)), and the applicant (a member of a political opposition party) in application no. 64801/12 to an amount of AZN 20 (at the material time approximately EUR 10). Relying on Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention the applicants complain about the unlawfulness of their arrest and detention, and the unfairness of domestic proceedings. In addition, the applicant in application no. 64801/12 complains under Article 11 of the Convention of a violation of his right to freedom of assembly.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
COMMON QUESTIONS
1. Were the applicants arrested and detained in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were the applicants’ “administrative” arrest and detention in compliance with domestic procedural rules?
2. Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the charges against them, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of equality of arms respected? Did the applicants have adequate time and facilities to prepare their defence and to question the witnesses? Was the applicants’ right to a reasoned judgment respected?
CASE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
IN RESPECT OF APPLICATION NO. 64801/12
1. Was the applicant able to defend himself, as required by Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention?
2. 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?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy