CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 mars 2018

.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 } .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 }   Communicated on 6 March 2018   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 7308/12 Shukran MAMMADOV against Azerbaijan lodged on 7 January 2012 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Shukran Mammadov, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1973 and lives in Ujar. He is represented before the Court by Mr   R.   Mustafazade and Mr A. Mustafayev, lawyers practising in Azerbaijan. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 14 July 2007 several titles of religious literature were seized during a police raid on a religious meeting which was taking place in the applicant’s home in Ujar. Subsequently, on an unknown date, he was fined for the administrative offence of holding an unauthorised religious meeting. On 19 March 2010 the applicant complained to the authorities that the religious books that were seized had not been returned to him. On 8 April 2010 the applicant received a letter from the State Committee for Work with Religious Associations ( Dini Qurumlarla İş Üzrə Dövlət Komitəsi – hereinafter referred to as “the Committee”) stating that, given their subject matter, the books had been found to be not recommendable for distribution. On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a claim against the Committee with the Sabail District Court, asking the court to order the return of the unlawfully seized religious literature. On 24 January 2011 the Sabail District Court rejected the claim, finding no violation of law on part of the Committee as it had been acting lawfully. On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an appeal against that decision. On 25 January 2012 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. Having considered an expert opinion that had been obtained, the court held that, because the seized books contained passages encouraging sectarianism and religious grouping and had thus been found to be not recommendable for distribution, the Committee had acted within the sphere of authority granted by the law. On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a cassation appeal against that decision. On 24 August 2011 the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, having found – with reference to Article 9 § 2 of the Convention and the Court’s case-law – that the authorities had acted in the interests of public safety and for the protection of public order by preventing the applicant from distributing the seized books at unauthorised religious meetings. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 9 of the Convention that the seizure of religious literature constituted an unlawful interference with his right to freedom of religion. He further complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the arbitrary seizure of religious literature amounted to a violation of his right for the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     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?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? If so, was that deprivation necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest?   3.     The parties are requested to submit copies of all the documents relating to the domestic proceedings.