Communicated on 6 July 2017
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 42730/11
Vepkhvia SHEVELI and Ekaterine SHENGELAYA
against Azerbaijan
lodged on 11 July 2011
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicants, Mr Vepkhvia Sheveli and Ms Ekaterine Shengelaya, are Georgian nationals, who were born in 1971 and 1970 respectively and live in Tbilisi. They are represented before the Court by Mr R. Cook, Mr A. Carbonneau and Mr J. Wise, lawyers practising respectively in London, Quebec and Ontario.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
On 18 December 2010, while participating in a religious meeting of Jehovah’s Witnesses in a private apartment in Ganja, the applicants were arrested during a police raid of the meeting. They had been taken to Ganja District Police Department, where they were detained for approximately twelve hours before being taken to the Nizami District Court.
On the same date, by separate decisions, the Nizami District Court found the applicants guilty of violating the legislation on freedom of religion by the foreigners under Article 300.0.4 of the Code of Administrative Offences and ordered their deportation.
On an unspecified date the applicants lodged appeals against those decisions. In their submissions the applicants admitted that they had been engaged in a religious meeting but argued that the meeting had not involved unlawful activities. The applicants relied on Articles 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 and Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention.
On 8 April 2011 the Ganja Court of Appeal dismissed by separate decisions the applicants’ appeals and upheld the decisions of the first-instance court. With reference to the Convention and the Court’s case-law the appellate court stated that the authorities had acted within the limitations that are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order and the rights and freedoms of others.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain under Article 9 of the Convention that the unlawful interference of the domestic authorities with their freedom of worship and practice amounted to a violation of their right to freedom of religion.
The applicants further complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention that the authorities failed to provide substantive reasoning for their deportation notwithstanding the absence of the interests of public order or national security issues.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been an interference with the applicants’ 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?
2. Were the applicants aliens lawfully resident in the territory of the respondent State? If yes, did the decision to expel them comply with the procedural requirements of Article 1 § 1 of Protocol No. 7? Was the decision to expel the applicants necessary within the meaning of Article 1 § 2 of Protocol No. 7?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy