CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 avril 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 } .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 } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA3C2123C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s86439055 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase }     Communicated on 4 April 2014   FIRST SECTION Application no. 69686/12 Tofig Rashid Oglu YAGUBLU against Azerbaijan lodged on 17 September 2012 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Tofig Yagublu, is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1961 and lives in Baku. He is represented before the Court by Mr   A.   Alizade, a lawyer practising in Azerbaijan. The applicant was the deputy chairman of the Musavat Party. He was also a columnist for the Yeni Musavat newspaper. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. A.     The applicant’s first arrest and his subsequent administrative conviction At around 10.30 a.m. on 24 May 2012 the applicant left his home with intent to go to work. On his way, about 150 metres far from his home, he was arrested by several plain-clothes police officers and was taken to the Surakhani District Police Office. After his arrival at the police office, the head of the police office had a “prophylactic” conversation with him. Following this conversation, another police officer also had a “prophylactic” conversation with the applicant. At around 4 p.m. the applicant was taken to Surakhani District Police Station No. 31 where a record on an administrative offence was drawn up by police officers. At 5 p.m. on the same day the applicant was taken to the Surakhani District Court and appeared before a judge. At the hearing two police officers stated that at noon on 24 May 2012 in front of “Balli” market in Amirjan suburb the applicant had disobeyed the orders of the police by refusing to present his identity card. The applicant denied that this had happened. The judge found the applicant guilty under Article 310 (obstructing the police) of the Code of Administrative Offences and sentenced him to a fine of 20 New Azerbaijani manats (AZN). The applicant was released from the courtroom. On 31 May 2012 the applicant appealed against this decision. He noted that his conviction had been based only on two police officers’ submissions and that his right to a fair trial had been violated. In particular, he noted that he had not been represented by a lawyer and that the judge had refused to hear witnesses on his behalf. The applicant further argued that he had been unlawfully kept in the police office for more than eight hours and that during this detention he was not allowed to contact his family. On 18 June 2012 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s decision and dismissed the applicant’s appeal. This decision was not subject to any appeal. B.     The applicant’s second arrest and his subsequent administrative conviction At around 5.45 p.m. on 25 May 2012 when the applicant with his son, who was a minor, came out of the Sabail metro station the deputy head of the Sabail District Police Office (“the SDPO”) approached him and asked not to go near the area where an unauthorised demonstration was planned to take place at that time. The applicant complied with this request and he went in the opposite direction. At that moment, four plain-clothes police officers arrested him and he and his son were taken to the SDPO. While the applicant spent the night on the premises of the SDPO, his son was in the courtyard of the SDPO. During this time the applicant was worried about his son. As for his conditions of detention, the applicant was firstly detained until 3 a.m. on 26 May 2012 in the walking area of the temporary detention facility of the SDPO and then he was placed in a cell. According to the applicant, sixty-four persons were detained in the walking area of the temporary detention facility measuring 20 sq. m. As to the cell which was designed for eight persons, twenty-tree persons were detained in it. Moreover, despite his requests, he was not provided with drinkable water. After his transfer to the cell, his fingerprints and photographs were taken. At noon on 26 May 2012 a record on an administrative offence was drawn up by the police and the applicant was taken to the Sabail District Court. The judge found the applicant guilty under Article 310 (obstructing the police) of the Code of Administrative Offences and sentenced him to a fine of AZN 20. The judge held that at 7.30 p.m. on 25 May 2012 the applicant had participated in an unauthorised demonstration and had failed to comply with lawful requests of the police. The applicant was released from the courtroom. On 31 May 2012 the applicant appealed against this decision. He complained that he had been unlawfully kept in the police office for more than nineteen hours and that his conditions of detention had been inhuman and degrading. The applicant also complained that he had not been provided with a lawyer and that the first-instance court had failed to examine witnesses on his behalf and had unlawfully convicted him of an administrative offence. On 18 June 2012 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s decision and dismissed the applicant’s appeal. This decision was not subject to any appeal. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that his conditions of detention in police custody from 5.45 p.m. on 25 May 2012 to noon on 26 May 2012 in the Sabail District Police Office were inhuman and degrading. The applicant complains under Article 5 of the Convention that from 10.30 a.m. to 5 p.m. on 24 May 2012 and from 5.45 p.m. on 25 May 2012 to noon on 26 May 2012 he was unlawfully detained by the police. He also complains that the domestic courts failed to examine the lawfulness of his detentions. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that his right to a fair trial was violated in two sets of administrative proceedings, because he was not provided with a lawyer or offered the opportunity to obtain witnesses on his behalf, and because the domestic courts refused to examine his complaints.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   1.     Were the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the Sabail District Police Office compatible with Article   3 of the Convention? Was the applicant detained in the walking area of the detention facility? If yes, what was the size of the walking area in question and how many persons were detained in that area at the same time as the applicant? Was the applicant detained in a cell in the detention facility? If yes, as regards the applicant’s detention, in respect of the cell where the applicant was detained: (a)     What were the dimensions of the cell? How many persons were detained in that cell at the same time as the applicant? Did the applicant have a separate bed and bedding? (b)     Was the cell adequately lit and ventilated? What were the sanitary conditions inside the cell? (d)     Did the applicant have appropriate provisions of food, water, bedding, clothing and other necessities?   2.     Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the deprivation of liberty during the period between 10.30 a.m. and 5 p.m. on 24 May 2012 and between 5.45 p.m. on 25 May 2012 and noon on 26 May 2012 fall within paragraphs of this provision? Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective procedure by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his detentions, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?   3.     Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its criminal head applicable to the administrative proceedings in the present case? Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular during two sets of administrative proceedings, was the applicant represented by a lawyer in the domestic proceedings? Was the applicant able to obtain the attendance of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him, as required by Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention?   The parties are requested to submit copies of all the documents relating to the administrative proceedings, including the records on an administrative offence, the transcripts of the hearing and witness submissions.