CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 octobre 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .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 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sC8636342 { 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 } .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 } .sC4A995C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; 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 } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Communicated on 2 October 2014     FIRST SECTION Application no. 51930/13 Bahruz HASANOV against Azerbaijan and 2 other applications (see list appended)   The applicants are Azerbaijani nationals (see Appendix). They are represented before the Court by Mr   R.   Mustafazade and Mr A. Mustafayev, lawyers practising in Azerbaijan. 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. In the period from 2010 to 2013 a number of opposition parties or groups organised several peaceful demonstrations in Baku. These demonstrations had not been authorised and many participants were arrested. Two of these demonstrations took place on 20 October 2012 and on 29   December 2013. Each of the applicants participated in one of these demonstrations. According to the applicant in application no. 51930/13, the organisers had given prior notice to the relevant authorities about the demonstration of 20 October 2012; however, the authorities had not authorised the demonstration. It appears that the organisers of the demonstration of 29 December 2013 had not given a formal notice to the relevant authorities about it. Information about this demonstration had been disseminated through Facebook. The demonstrations were intended to be peaceful and were conducted in a peaceful manner. The participants of the demonstration of 20 October 2012 demanded that the Government conduct democratic reforms in the country; and the participants of the demonstration of 29 December 2013 protested against bureaucratic injustice which had allegedly caused suicide of a war veteran on 25 December 2013. Both demonstrations were dispersed by the police. The applicants were arrested either at or near the places where the demonstrations were held. They were taken to various police stations. According to the applicant in application no. 51930/13, he was arrested by plain-clothed persons and was taken to a police station in a car with no registration plates. According to the applicants, they were not given an opportunity to contact their relatives and were not promptly informed about the reasons for their arrest. The applicants’ rights were not properly explained to them and they were not given access to a lawyer. On the day of each applicant’s arrest, an “administrative offence report” ( inzibati xəta haqqında protokol ) setting out the charges was drawn up in respect of each applicant. The applicant in application no. 51930/13 was charged with an administrative offence under Articles 310.1 (failure to comply with a lawful order of a police officer) and 298 (violation of rules on holding public assemblies) of the Code of Administrative Offences (“the CAO”). The applicants in applications nos. 26424/14 and 26994/14 were charged under Article 298.2 (participation in a public assembly which was not organised in accordance with law) of the CAO. According to the applicant in application no. 51930/13, he was never served with a copy of the administrative offence report issued against him. The applicant in application no. 51930/13 was brought before a first ‑ instance court on the day of the arrest. The applicant in application no.   26994/14 was brought before a first-instance court the day following his arrest. After having been kept for several hours in police custody, the applicant in application no. 26424/14 was released, subject to an undertaking to appear at the police station again on 30 January 2013 (the next day after the arrest). He was brought before a first-instance court on the mentioned date. In application no. 51930/13 the first-instance court found that the applicant had deliberately failed to comply with the lawful order of police officers to refrain from participating in an unauthorised demonstration (an offence under Article 310.1 of the CAO). In applications nos. 26424/14 and 26994/14 the respective first-instance court found that the applicant had participated in a demonstration which had not been organised in accordance with law (an offence under Article 298.2 of the CAO). Each applicant was sentenced to a period of “administrative detention” varying from seven to seventeen days. According to the applicants, the hearing before the first-instance court in each case lasted only for about ten minutes. The applicants had insisted on employing lawyers of their own choice, but the judges of the respective first-instance courts had disregarded their requests. According to the applicants in applications nos. 26424/14 and 26994/14, representation by State-funded lawyers was ineffective and of a formalistic nature. The first-instance courts relied heavily on the administrative offence reports issued in respect of the applicants. The only witnesses questioned during the court hearings were the police officers who had not been involved in the applicants’ arrest (applications nos. 26424/14 and 26994/14). According to the applicant in application no. 51930/13, no witnesses were questioned in his case, except for the applicant himself. Members of the public 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. 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 or attempted to participate 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. The applicants 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. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicants complain under Article 5 of the Convention that they were not promptly informed about the reasons for their arrest; that they were not given an opportunity to contact their relatives; and that their rights were not properly explained to them. In application no. 51930/13 the applicant additionally complains that he was never served with a copy of the administrative offence report issued against him and with other materials in his case-file, and that he was arrested by plain-clothed persons. 2.     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; that they were deprived of access to effective legal assistance, both after the arrest and during the judicial proceedings; and that the only witnesses to be questioned were police officers (in application no.   51930/13, no witnesses were questioned). Also, the applicants complain under Article 6 of the Convention that their right to a public hearing was violated. 3.     The applicants complain that they were arrested and prosecuted for participating or attempting to participate in peaceful demonstrations, in breach of Article 11 of the Convention. The applicant in application no.   51930/13 also relies on Article 10 in this respect. 4.     The applicant in application no. 51930/13 complains, invoking Article   7 of the Convention, that the domestic law serving as a basis for his conviction did not comply with the principle of foreseeability. He argues that participation in a peaceful demonstration (advance notice about which had been given to the relevant authorities) was his constitutional right and not a criminal offence. COMMON QUESTIONS 1.     Were the applicants deprived of their liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicants’ “administrative” arrest in compliance with domestic procedural rules?   2.     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?   3.     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 the interference prescribed by law, as required by Article 11 § 2? In particular, did the domestic legislation in question meet the “quality of law” requirement? Furthermore, was the interference necessary, in terms of Article 11 § 2?   4.     The parties are requested to submit copies of all documents relating to the administrative proceedings, including the administrative offence reports, any statements made by the applicants before being brought to court, the transcripts of the hearings and the applicants’ appeals.   5.     The parties are also requested to submit copies of all documents relating to the organisation and holding of the demonstrations in which the applicants participated, in particular, the notices (if any) submitted by the organisers of the demonstrations to the relevant local executive authorities, and the official responses the organisers received from the relevant local executive authorities refusing to authorise the demonstrations. CASE SPECIFIC QUESTION 1.     Application no. 51930/13: Did the acts of which the applicant was found guilty constitute an offence, as required by Article 7 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic law clearly provide for (a) the offence of deliberately failing to comply with the lawful order of police officers to refrain from participating in an unauthorised demonstration, and (b) the procedure for the organisation and holding of assemblies itself (see Vyerentsov v. Ukraine, no. 20372/11, 11   April 2013)? No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant name date of birth place of residence Notes First-instance judgment Appellate judgment   51930/13 06/02/2013 Bahruz HASANOV 1981 Baku 7 days’ administrative detention for participation in the demonstration of 20   October 2012 Decision of the Sabail District Court of 20 October 2012 Decision of the Baku Court of Appeal of 29 October 2012   26424/14 18/03/2014 Javid HAJIBEYLI 1985 Aghjabedi   16 days’ administrative detention for participation in the demonstration of 29   December 2013 Decision of the Sabail District Court of 30 December 2013 Decision of the Baku Court of Appeal of 10 January 2014   26994/14 18/03/2014 Tural SADIGLI 1984 Baku 17 days’ administrative detention for participation in the demonstration of 29   December 2013 Decision of the Sabail District Court of 30 December 2013 Decision of the Baku Court of Appeal of 9 January 2014