Communicated on 6 September 2018
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 81028/17
Vugar Karim oglu RAFIYEV
against Azerbaijan
lodged on 6 November 2017
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the alleged lack of fairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicant who was convicted in summary “administrative” proceedings on charges of failure to comply with a lawful order of the police officer and he was fined 1,500 Azerbaijani manats (AZN – approximately 920 euros (EUR) at the relevant time).
The applicant complains that his arrest and detention were unlawful and lasted for about 13 hours which is in excess of the limit of 3 hours allowed by the domestic legislation for administrative detention without a court order.
The applicant also complains under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (c) of the Convention that:
(a) the proceedings against him lacked fairness as the national courts’ findings were based merely on the administrative-offence report;
(b) the trial had been held in camera without a court order to that effect;
(c) he was not given the right to choose his own defence counsel both when questioned by the police and during the trial against him and his corresponding complaint was ignored by the appellate court;
d) he had not been provided with a copy of the relevant administrative-offence report and other case file materials and did therefore not have adequate facilities for the preparation of his defence.
The applicant further complains under Article 9 of the Convention about unlawful interference of the domestic authorities with his freedom of worship and religious practice.
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES
1. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the deprivation of liberty fall within the paragraphs of that provision?
2. Did the applicant have a fair trial in the criminal proceedings against him, as required under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic courts sufficiently examine the arguments raised by the applicant in his defence (see Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 60259/11, 15 October 2015, and Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 67360/11 and 2 others, 11 February 2016)?
3. Has there been a public hearing in the present case, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? If not, was the exclusion of the public in the present case “strictly necessary” for one of the purposes authorised by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Malofeyeva v. Russia, no. 36673/04, 30 May 2013)?
4. Was the applicant afforded adequate facilities to prepare his defence, as required by Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention?
5. 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?
6. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of religion within the meaning of Article 9 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 9 § 2 of the Convention?
The Government are requested to submit copies of the entire case file from the domestic proceedings.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy