CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 juin 2015

.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 } .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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s69A82CF5 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:left } .s46FE600A { width:294pt; display:inline-block } .sB2586C02 { width:24.28pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .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 } .sC4A995C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; 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 } .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 18 June 2015   FIRST SECTION Applications nos 9626/14 and 9717/14 Ulvi HASANOV against Azerbaijan and Majid MAJIDLI against Azerbaijan lodged on 18 January 2014 and 18 January 2014 respectively STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicants are Azerbaijani nationals. They are represented before the Court by Mr A. Gasimov, a lawyer practising in Azerbaijan.   The circumstances of the cases   The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. The applicants are opposition-oriented activists. The applicant in application no. 9626/14 is a member of an opposition movement Nida and the applicant in application no. 9717/14 is a member of an executive board of a youth organisation Azad Genclik. At around 4.30 p.m. on 13 July 2013 the applicants were disseminating leaflets when they were ascending on an escalator at Icheri Sheher underground station in Baku. For this activity they were arrested by the police. According to the applicants, the leaflets contained extracts from the Constitution of Azerbaijan, such as “the source of the State power is the people, and the people establish the governance”. On an unspecified date an “administrative offence report” ( inzibati xəta haqqında protokol ) was drawn up in respect of each applicant. Each report stated that the applicant had disseminated anti-government leaflets and had disobeyed a lawful order of a police officer, and, by doing so, had committed an administrative offence under Article 310.1 (failure to comply with a lawful order of a police officer) of the Code of Administrative Offences (“the CAO”). It appears that the applicants were arrested on 14 July 2013 and were kept in police custody overnight. On 15 July 2013 the applicants were brought before the Sabail District Court. The administrative case against each applicant was examined in the separate proceedings. The court convicted the applicants under Article   310.1 of the CAO, and sentenced both to fifteen days’ “administrative detention”. According to the applicants, they were not given an opportunity to hire lawyers of their own choice and were not represented by State-funded lawyers either. Only a police officer was questioned as a witness at the proceedings against the applicants. It appears that the court decisions in both cases were heavily based on that police officer’s statements and on the administrative offence reports drawn up in the applicants’ respect. The applicants lodged appeals asking the Baku Court of Appeal to quash the first-instance court’s decision in their respective cases. The applicants argued that they had not disobeyed any order of a police officer. Also, the applicants complained that in their respective cases the first-instance court had failed to examine the content of the disseminated leaflets and to establish what order (if any) of a police officer they had allegedly disobeyed. On 19 July 2013 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants’ appeals.   COMPLAINTS   The applicants complain that they were arrested and convicted for disseminating anti-government leaflets, in breach of Article 10 of the Convention. Also, the applicants complain, without relying on a particular Convention provision, that they did not have a fair hearing in the administrative offence proceedings against them.       QUESTIONS   1.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression, in particular their right to impart information and ideas, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2?   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 hearing in determining the charge against them, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?         APPENDIX No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant name date of birth place of residence Sanction First-instance judgment Appellate judgment   9626/14 18/01/2014 Ulvi HASANOV 1987 Ganja 15 days’ administrative detention for dissemination of anti-government leaflets on 13 July 2013 Decision of the Sabail District Court of 15 July 2013 Decision of the Baku Court of Appeal of 19 July 2013   9717/14 18/01/2014 Majid MAJIDLI 1990 Baku   15 days’ administrative detention for dissemination of anti-government leaflets on 13 July 2013 Decision of the Sabail District Court of 15 July 2013 Decision of the Baku Court of Appeal of 19 July 2013