Published on 19 May 2025
THIRD SECTION
Applications nos. 16466/18 and 34166/19
Ahsan NURUZADE
against Azerbaijan
lodged on 26 March 2018 and 19 June 2019 respectively
communicated on 30 April 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicant was a member of an unregistered religious movement, Müsəlman Birliyi (“the MB”). The applications concern his arrest, detention and the criminal proceedings against him.
On 26 November 2015, armed police officers of the Ministry of Internal Affairs carried out an operation in the Nardaran settlement of Baku and arrested a number of members of the MB. Many of the arrested MB members were subsequently tried and convicted for various offences during the period between 2016 and 2018. The applicant attended the trial of the MB members, disseminated information and his thoughts on the trial and other social and political events, and used his social media accounts to call for participation in opposition activities.
On 22 September 2017 the applicant was sentenced to ten days’ administrative detention for allegedly swearing in the street and deliberate failure to comply with the lawful order of a police officer. On 5 October 2017, a few days after his release from administrative detention, the applicant posted on his social media that he would “continue his activities” and called on people to attend a demonstration planned on 7 October 2017.
On 6 October 2017 the police arrested the applicant on the basis of operational information that he was a drug dealer and charged him with illegal possession, with the intent to sell, of a large quantity of narcotic substances under Article 234.4.3 of the Criminal Code. On 7 October 2017 the Narimanov District Court ordered his pre-trial detention for a period of four months.
By a judgment of 6 March 2018, the Baku Court of Serious Crimes found the applicant guilty under Article 234.4.3 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment. After a series of appeals, by a final decision of 30 January 2019, the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ judgments.
In application no. 16466/18, the applicant complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the domestic courts did not provide relevant and sufficient reasons for his pre-trial detention. In application no. 34166/19, relying on Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant complains that his conviction was based on planted evidence, that his right to a reasoned decision was violated and that the domestic courts did not respect the principles of equality of arms and adversarial proceedings by rejecting his requests. In application no. 34166/19, the applicant also raised complaints under Articles 10 and 18 of the Convention, complaining that his Convention rights had been violated because of his social and political activism, that the criminal proceedings were instituted in order to punish him for a social media post he had published on 5 October 2017 and that his criminal conviction had the ulterior purpose of punishing him for this.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic courts give sufficient and relevant reasons for the applicant’s detention for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Farhad Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 37138/06, §§ 184-94, 9 November 2010, and Zayidov v. Azerbaijan, no. 11948/08, §§ 55-69, 20 February 2014)?
2. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Layijov v. Azerbaijan, no. 22062/07, §§ 62-76, 10 April 2014, and Sakit Zahidov v. Azerbaijan, no. 51164/07, §§ 46-58, 12 November 2015)? In particular:
(a) Was the applicant’s right to a reasoned decision respected?
(b) Were the principles of equality of arms and adversarial proceedings respected?
(c) Was the applicant afforded an adequate opportunity to contest the authenticity of the evidence against him, and to adduce evidence in support of his line of defence and to have such evidence assessed by the court?
3. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was his conviction related to his social media posts and political activism? If so, was the interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2 in pursuit of a legitimate aim?
4. Were the restrictions imposed by the State on the applicant, purportedly pursuant to Article 6 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by that provision, contrary to Article 18 of the Convention (see Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) [GC], nos. 20958/14 and 38334/18, § 1338, 25 June 2024, and Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (no. 2) [GC], no. 14305/17, § 421-22, 22 December 2020)?
The parties are requested to submit relevant documentary evidence in support of their replies and submissions, including copies of the witness statements, transcripts of court hearings, the applicant’s requests and decisions of the courts concerning those requests, expert reports, and so on.