CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 septembre 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 } .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 } .sE8EB5753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDFC5B1C5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8F670191 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .s7FB6B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:10pt } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s9EF34BA5 { width:99.25pt; display:inline-block } .s9026E8B1 { height:45.7pt } .s10D86D70 { height:43.95pt } .sF60BE8B1 { height:46.1pt } .s45EB3507 { width:77.57pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block }   Communicated on 20 September 2018   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 77612/11 Vidadi Isgandar oglu ISGANDAROV against Azerbaijan and 9 other applications (see list appended) STATEMENT OF FACTS A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. All applicants were apprehended on various dates. The domestic courts ordered and later extended the applicants’ remand in custody for various periods set out in the appendix, dismissing the applicants’ appeals in this connection. The applicant in application no. 9747/14 was apprehended at 9.25 a.m. on 20 June 2013 and later questioned as a witness without a lawyer. At around 7 p.m. he was formally accused and at around 10 p.m. the court ordered his remand in custody. The domestic courts dismissed the applicant’s complaint of unlawfulness of his detention between 9.25 a.m. and 10 p.m. on 20 June 2013, holding that there was no breach of the domestic law. In application no. 5190/15 the domestic courts dismissed the applicant’s complaints of undocumented detention between 6 and 8 October 2014 and detention in excess of the maximum forty-eight-hour period permitted by domestic law prior to being brought before a judge, who ordered his remand in custody on 10 October 2014. During the hearings concerning the remand in custody, the applicants in applications nos. 20698/15, 58194/16 and 58199/16 were confined in metal cages in the courtrooms. In applications nos. 48643/13 and 66534/14 the applicants complained of unlawfulness of their detention during the periods set out in the appendix without judicial authorisation, having been held in custody solely on the basis of the fact that an indictment had been filed with a trial court. In application no. 77612/11 the applicant, who suffered from diabetes, was kept in the Nasimi district police office’s two-person cell with up to seven people and was not provided with food and drinking water between around 9 p.m. on 26 April and 10 a.m. on 27 April 2011. The domestic courts dismissed his complaint against the prosecuting authority’s decision to refuse to open a criminal case into conditions of his detention. On 14 April 2015 the applicant in application no. 48832/15 was taken to the Narimanov District Court, where he was kept in a cell that was cold and stuffy and did not have proper ventilation. He was kept in that cell between around 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. and was not provided with food and drinking water. On 6 June 2015 he was kept in the same cell and was not provided with food and drinking water between 9 a.m. and 1 p.m. During the court proceedings, the applicant also raised complaints with regard to the conditions of his transport from and to the pre-trial detention facility. In applications nos. 5190/15 and 62357/15 the first-instance courts’ decisions ordering the applicants’ remand in custody contain the statements that the applicants had committed crimes they had been charged with. In application no. 9747/14 the applicant’s home was searched and a number of his personal items were seized. The domestic courts dismissed the applicant’s complaint against the court decisions ordering the search of his home. The applicant in application no. 77612/11 was convicted under Articles   132 (Beating), 159 (Hindrance to the exercise of the electoral rights) and 160 (Interference with the functioning of the electoral commissions) of the Criminal Code. In his appeal and cassation appeal, the applicant complained, inter alia, that the domestic courts dismissed his procedural requests to examine a number of pieces of evidence essential for a fair examination of his case. By a judgment of 10 April 2012, the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s complaints, upholding the lower courts’ judgments. COMPLAINTS 1.     All applicants complain under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the domestic courts have failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons justifying the necessity for their pre-trial detention. 2.     The applicants in applications nos. 48643/13, 9747/14, 66534/14 and   5190/15 complain under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention of unlawfulness of their detention for the periods set out in the appendix. 3.     The applicant in application no. 9747/14 complains under Article   5 §   4 of the Convention that the domestic courts did not properly assess the arguments stated in his complaints. The applicant also complains under Article 13 of the Convention that he did not have effective remedies to challenge violation of his rights under Article 5 of the Convention. 4.     The applicants in applications nos. 20698/15, 58194/16 and 58199/16 complain under Article 3 of the Convention about their placement in metal cages in the courtrooms. 5.     The applicant in application no. 77612/11 complains under Article 3 of the Convention of the conditions of his detention in the Nasimi district police office on 26 and 27 April 2011. 6.     The applicant in application no. 48832/15 complains under Article 3 of the Convention of the conditions of his detention in the cell in the building of the Narimanov District Court and conditions of transport from and to the pre-trial detention facility. 7.     The applicant in application no. 77612/11 complains under Article   6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention that he did not have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in particular, that (a) his rights to equality of arms and adversarial proceedings were breached because most of his procedural requests were ignored or rejected and he was not given a reasonable opportunity to present his case under conditions which were not disadvantageous vis-à-vis the prosecution; (b) he was not able to obtain the attendance of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him and to examine witnesses against him and (c) the domestic courts’ judgments were unreasoned. 8.     The applicants in applications nos. 5190/15 and 62357/15 complain under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention of violation of presumption of innocence on account of the statements reflected in the first-instance courts’ decisions ordering their remand in custody. 9.     The applicant in application no. 9747/14 complains under Article 8 of the Convention of unlawfulness of the search of his home. The applicant also complains under Article 13 of the Convention that he did not have effective remedies in respect of his complaints under Article 8 of the Convention. COMMON QUESTION Were the applicants deprived of their liberty in breach of Article 5 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic courts give sufficient and relevant reasons for the applicants’ detention for the purposes of Article   5 §   3 of the Convention? The Government are requested to submit copies of all documents concerning the applicants’ cases. CASE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS 1.     Applications nos. 48643/13, 9747/14, 66534/14 and 5190/15 Were the applicants deprived of their liberty in breach of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, did their deprivation of liberty during the periods set out in the appendix fall within the paragraphs of this provision?   2.     Application no. 9747/14 Was the procedure by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention in conformity with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?   3.     Application no. 77612/11 Was the applicant subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, in connection with conditions of his detention in the Nasimi district police office?   4.     Application no. 48832/15 Were the conditions of the applicant’s detention in a cell in the building of the Narimanov District Court compatible with Article 3 of the Convention? Were the conditions of the applicant’s transport from and to the pre-trial detention facility compatible with Article 3 of the Convention?   5.     Applications nos. 20698/15, 48832/15, 58194/16 and 58199/16 Were the applicants subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention on account of their confinement in a metal cage in the courtrooms?   6.     Application no. 77612/11 Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article   6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of equality of arms respected as regards the conditions afforded to the defence to present its case? Was the applicant able to obtain the attendance of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him and to examine witnesses against him? Was the applicant’s right to a reasoned judgment based on a proper examination of the submissions and evidence respected in the present case?   7.     Applications nos. 5190/15 and 62357/15 Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, respected in the present cases?   8.     Application no. 9747/14 Was there an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 § 2? Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 8 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?   The Government are requested to submit copies of all documents concerning the applicants’ cases.   APPENDIX   No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Represented by Period of detention under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention Period of detention under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention   77612/11 11/11/2011 Vidadi ISGANDAROV 03/05/1962 Baku Khalid BAGIROV 02/05/2011-27/08/2011       48643/13 10/07/2013 Dashgin MALIKOV 18/02/1991 Baku Ruslan MUSTAFAZADE 25/03/2013–03/07/2013       25/05/2013–13/06/2013     9747/14 23/12/2013 Akif MURADVERDIYEV (no.2) 24/08/1949 Baku   Fuad AGAYEV 20/06/2013-13/12/2013           20/06/2013, 9.25 a.m.-10 p.m.       66534/14 26/09/2014 Tural SAFAROV 26/06/1995 Baku Khalid BAGIROV 31/05/2014 – 14/10/2014     31/08/2014 – 16/09/2014     5190/15 14/01/2015 Mansur HEYDARZADA 15/05/1977 Absheron Khalid BAGIROV 10/10/2014 -02/11/2016   06/10/14-10/10/14   20698/15 14/04/2015   Mahammad BAGIROV 14/06/1958 Baku Javad JAVADOV 10/10/2014-11/04/2016     48832/15 18/09/2015 Vugar ALIYEV 29/01/1972 Baku Javad JAVADOV 10/03/2015-14/08/2015     62357/15 09/12/2015   Nazim AGHABAYOV 24/03/1978 Baku   23/07/2015-21/04/2016       58194/16 14/09/2016   Zulfugar MIKAYILOV 07/07/1978 Baku   Javad JAVADOV   26/11/2015 – 06/12/2017                                                              58199/16 14/09/2016   Elman AGAYEV 02/09/1979 Baku   Javad JAVADOV 07/03/2016 – 06/12/2017