CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 février 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s72EB7DC5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s25B97BCD { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse } .sF5C9E8B1 { height:46.3pt } .sD1CDDC62 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s2490CDBC { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s8DB21C27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s299B0C57 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s67CDEFD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.4pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.4pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s26ADB50A { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sFD306575 { height:35.55pt } .s2F4AF114 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6CF83D49 { margin-left:11.67pt; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .s898DAE93 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sA0B2759 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sB71F2881 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC4A995C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; font-size:8pt } .sFD82DC6 { margin-left:16.12pt; padding-left:1.73pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .sBCA334AF { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7CB6920E { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s62945D10 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   Communicated on 17 February 2014   FIRST SECTION Application no. 74609/10 Bayram BAYRAMOV against Azerbaijan and 10 other applications (see list appended) STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicants are Azerbaijani nationals. They are represented before the Court by various lawyers practising in Azerbaijan (see Appendix). A.     The circumstances of the cases The facts, as submitted by the applicants, are similar in all cases, unless indicated otherwise, and may be summarised as follows. The applicants are opposition-oriented activists; some of them hold positions in political parties or groups. In the period from 2010 to 2011 a number of opposition parties or groups organised several peaceful demonstrations in Baku. The demonstrations in question took place, or were planned to take place, on 31 July 2010 and 12   March, 2 April, 17 April, 22 May and 19 June 2011. Each of the applicants participated in one of the demonstrations. According to the applicants, the organisers had given prior notice to the relevant authorities about the planned demonstrations; however, the authorities had not authorised the demonstrations. The gatherings were intended to be peaceful and were conducted in a peaceful manner. The participants were demanding that the Government, inter alia , hold free and fair elections, provide for freedom of assembly, conduct democratic reforms, and free people who had been arrested during previous demonstrations. All of the demonstrations were dispersed by the police. The applicants (except the one in application no. 69421/11) were arrested by the police in the course of dispersing the gatherings, either at or in proximity to the places where the demonstrations had been held. They were taken to various police stations. The applicant in application no. 69421/11 alleged that he had been arrested after the demonstration in which he had participated. According to this applicant, police officers broke through the door of the apartment where he was with another opposition member, and arrested both of them. Some of the applicants alleged that they had been taken to a police station by plain-clothed persons (the applicants in applications nos.   60259/11, 63959/11 and 67351/11). Most of the applicants alleged that they had not been given an opportunity to contact their relatives (the applicants in applications nos.   60259/11, 63959/11, 67351/11, 67977/11, 69234/11, 69252/11, 69335/11, 69411/11 and 69421/11). According to some of the applicants, after their arrest they were kept in a police station for several hours without knowing what the charges against them were (applications nos. 60259/11, 63959/11, 67351/11, 67977/11, 69234/11, 69252/11, 69335/11, 69411/11 and 69421/11). The applicants alleged that their rights, including the right to have a lawyer, were not properly explained to them and that they were not given access to a lawyer after the arrest. On the day of each applicant’s arrest, an “administrative offence report” ( inzibati xəta haqqında protokol ) was issued against each applicant. The report stated that the applicant had deliberately failed to comply with the lawful order to refrain from participating in an unauthorised demonstration issued by police officers executing their duty to protect public order and that, by doing so, he had committed an administrative offence under Article 310.1 of the Code of Administrative Offences (“the CAO”) (in application no. 63959/11, an administrative offence under Article 298 and Article 310.1 of the CAO). It appears that the applicants made statements that they had indeed participated, or attempted to participate, in unauthorised demonstrations. Those statements were attached to the administrative offence reports. Similar statements were made before the first-instance court. In most of the cases the applicants were not served in a timely manner with a copy of the administrative offence reports issued against them (applications nos. 24508/11, 60259/11, 67977/11, 69234/11, 69252/11, 69335/11, 69411/11 and 69421/11). The applicants alleged that the reports were issued by different police officers from those who had actually arrested them (applications nos. 74609/10, 60259/11, 63959/11, 67977/11, 69234/11, 69252/11, 69335/11, 69411/11 and 69421/11). The applicant in application no. 69421/11 refused to sign the administrative offence report issued against him. Each applicant was brought before a first-instance court, either on the day of the arrest (applications nos. 60259/11, 67351/11, 69234/11 and 69252/11) or the following day (application no. 69335/11). In each case the first-instance court convicted the applicant under Article 310.1 of the CAO (in application no. 63959/11 also under Article 298 of the CAO) and sentenced him to a period of “administrative detention” varying from five to fifteen days. According to the applicants, the hearing before the first-instance court in each case lasted only a few minutes. Some of the applicants were not represented by a lawyer (applications nos. 74609/10, 24508/11, 69234/11, 69252/11 and 69335/11). Others alleged that they had refused the assistance of State-funded lawyers and insisted on employing lawyers of their own choice, but that the judges of the respective first-instance courts had disregarded their requests. According to the applicants, representation by State-funded lawyers was ineffective and of a formalistic nature (applications nos. 60259/11, 67351/11, 67977/11, 69411/11 and 69421/11). The applicants alleged that the only witnesses questioned during the court hearings were the police officers who had arrested the applicants (applications nos. 74609/10 and 24508/11) or those who allegedly had not been involved in the applicants’ arrest at all (applications nos. 60259/11, 63959/11, 67351/11, 67977/11, 69234/11, 69252/11, 69335/11, 69411/11 and 69421/11). According to some of the applicants, members of the public (including human rights defenders and journalists) were not allowed to attend the court hearings, even though the courts had not taken any formal decisions to close the hearings to the public (applications nos. 60259/11, 63959/11, 67977/11, 69234/11, 69252/11, 69335/11, 69411/11 and 69421/11). The applicants lodged appeals before the Baku Court of Appeal, arguing that their convictions were in violation of their rights because the demonstrations in which they had participated had been peaceful. The applicants also complained that their arrest had been unlawful and that the hearings before the respective first-instance courts had not been fair. They asked the Baku Court of Appeal to quash the first-instance courts’ decisions in their respective cases. On various dates, the Baku Court of Appeal rejected the applicants’ appeals and upheld the decisions of the first-instance courts, finding that the applicants, by participating in unauthorised demonstrations, had deliberately refused to comply with the lawful orders of police officers. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicants complain, under Article 6 of the Convention, that they did not have a fair hearing in the administrative offence proceedings because they were not given sufficient time and facilities to prepare their defence; they were deprived of access to effective legal assistance, both after the arrest and during the judicial proceedings; and the only witnesses to be questioned were police officers. Also, in applications nos. 60259/11, 63959/11, 67977/11, 69234/11, 69252/11, 69335/11, 69411/11 and 69421/11, the applicants complain under Article 6 of the Convention that their right to a public hearing was violated. 2.     The applicants complain that they were arrested and prosecuted for participating in peaceful demonstrations, in breach of Article 11 of the Convention. 3.     In applications nos. 60259/11, 63959/11, 67351/11, 67977/11, 69234/11, 69252/11, 69335/11, 69411/11 and 69421/11, the applicants complain, under Article 5 of the Convention, that they were not promptly informed about the reasons for their arrest; they were not given an opportunity to contact their relatives; their rights, including the right to have a lawyer, were not properly explained to them; they were not served with a copy of the administrative offence report issued against each of them; and in some cases they were taken to police stations by plain-clothed persons. 4.     In applications nos. 63959/11, 67977/11, 69234/11, 69252/11, 69335/11, 69411/11 and 69421/11, the applicants complain that their right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention was violated because they were arrested and prosecuted for participating in peaceful demonstrations.   COMMON QUESTIONS 1.     Was Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention under its criminal head applicable to the proceedings in the present cases? If so, did the applicants have a fair and public hearing in determining the charge against them, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of equality of arms respected as regards the provision of sufficient time and facilities to prepare their defence, the opportunity to defend themselves through effective legal assistance, and the questioning of witnesses?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ 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?   3.     The parties are requested to submit copies of all documents relating to the administrative proceedings, including the reports on an administrative offence, any statements made by the applicants before being brought to court, the transcripts of the hearings and the applicants’ appeals. CASE-SPECIFIC QUESTIONS 1.     Applications nos. 24508/11 and 69411/11: Did the applicants comply with the six-month time-limit for lodging the application?   2.     Applications nos. 60259/11, 63959/11, 67351/11, 67977/11, 69234/11, 69252/11, 69335/11, 69411/11 and 69421/11: Were the applicants deprived of their liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?   3.     Applications nos. 60259/11, 63959/11, 67977/11, 69234/11, 69252/11, 69335/11, 69411/11 and 69421/11: Has there been a public hearing in the present cases, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   4.     Applications nos. 63959/11, 67977/11, 69234/11, 69252/11, 69335/11, 69411/11 and 69421/11: Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention?     APPENDIX No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant name date of birth place of residence Represented by Notes First-instance judgment Appellate judgment   74609/10 10/11/2010 Bayram BAYRAMOV 1962 Sumgait Ruslan MUSTAFAZADE 10 days’ administrative detention for participation in the demonstration of 31 July 2010 Decision of the Sabail District Court of 31 July 2010 Decision of the Baku Court of Appeal of 16 August 2010   24508/11 02/04/2011 Mahammad MAJIDLI 1973 Baku Ruslan MUSTAFAZADE 7 days’ administrative detention for participation in the demonstration of 31 July 2010 Decision of the Sabail District Court of 31 July 2010 Decision of the Baku Court of Appeal of 16 August 2010 (sent to the applicant on 23 December 2010)     60259/11 10/09/2011 Gafgaz MAMMADOV 1953 Baku Ruslan MUSTAFAZADE 5 days’ administrative detention for participation in the demonstration of 19 June 2011 Decision of the Sabail District Court of 20 June 2011 Decision of the Baku Court of Appeal of 24 June 2011     63959/11 29/09/2011 Nasrulla MAMMADLI 1955 Baku Elchin NAMAZOV 10 days’ administrative detention for participation in the demonstration of 12 March 2011 Decision of the Sabail District Court of 12 March 2011 Decision of the Baku Court of Appeal of 30 March 2011     67351/11 23/09/2011 Vidadi ISGANDAROV 1962 Baku Akif ALIZADE 15 days’ administrative detention for participation in the demonstration of 17 April 2011 Decision of the Nasimi District Court of 18 April 2011 Decision of the Baku Court of Appeal of 27 April 2011   67977/11 14/10/2011 Ikram ISRAFILOV 1964 Sumgait Ruslan MUSTAFAZADE 7 days’ administrative detention for participation in the demonstration of 2 April 2011 Decision of the Nasimi District Court of 2 April 2011 Decision of the Baku Court of Appeal of 11 April 2011 (received by the applicant on 18 April 2011)     69234/11 19/10/2011 Agasif IBRAHIMOV 1988 Baku Ruslan MUSTAFAZADE 7 days’ administrative detention for participation in the demonstration of 22 May 2011 Decision of the Sabail District Court of 23 May 2011 Decision of the Baku Court of Appeal of 31 May 2011     69252/11 19/10/2011 Emin FARHADI 1989 Khirdalan Asabali MUSTAFAYEV 8 days’ administrative detention for participation in the demonstration of 22 May 2011 Decision of the Sabail District Court of 23 May 2011 Decision of the Baku Court of Appeal of 31 May 2011     69335/11 19/10/2011 Jamil HAJIYEV 1977 Baku Ruslan MUSTAFAZADE 7 days’ administrative detention for participation in the demonstration of 22 May 2011 Decision of the Sabail District Court of 23 May 2011 Decision of the Baku Court of Appeal of 31 May 2011   69411/11 18/10/2011 Hikmat AGAYEV 1985 Baku Ruslan MUSTAFAZADE 7 days’ administrative detention for participation in the demonstration of 2 April 2011 Decision of the Sabail District Court of 2 April 2011 Decision of the Baku Court of Appeal of 13 April 2011 (received by the applicant on 15 October 2011)     69421/11 19/10/2011 Rovshan GULIYEV 1969 Baku Ruslan MUSTAFAZADE 8 days’ administrative detention for participation in the demonstration of 2 April 2011 Decision of the Sabail District Court of 2 April 2011 Decision of the Baku Court of Appeal of 13 April 2011 (received by the applicant on 22 April 2011)