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 } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } Communicated on 2 October 2014     FIRST SECTION Applications nos. 19150/13 and 52022/13 Vusal BAYRAMOV against Azerbaijan and Vusal BAYRAMOV against Azerbaijan lodged on 27 February 2013 and 13 March 2013 respectively   The applicant is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1988 and lives in Baku. The applicant is represented before the Court by Mr   R.   Mustafazade, a lawyer practising in Azerbaijan. The circumstances of the cases The applicant is an opposition-oriented activist. 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. The applicant participated in two of these demonstrations which took place on 12 January 2013 and 26 January 2013, in respect of which he lodged two separate applications. 1.     Application no. 19150/13 lodged on 27 February 2013 This application concerns the applicant’s participation in the demonstration of 12 January 2013. According to the applicant, the organisers of the 12 January 2013 demonstration had not given a formal notice to the relevant authorities about the planned demonstration. Information about the demonstration had been disseminated through Facebook or through the press. The demonstration was intended to be peaceful and was conducted in a peaceful manner. The participants were drawing public’s attention to the deaths of soldiers in the army. The demonstration was dispersed by the police. The applicant was arrested during the dispersal and was taken to a police station. According to the applicant, he was not given an opportunity to contact his relatives. He was not informed promptly about the reasons for his arrest. The applicant’s rights, including the right to have a lawyer, were not properly explained to him and he was not given access to a lawyer. On the day of his arrest, an “administrative offence report” ( inzibati xəta haqqında protokol ) was drawn up in respect of the applicant. The report stated that the applicant had committed an administrative offence under Article 298.2 (participation in a public assembly which was not organised in accordance with law) of the Code of Administrative Offences (“the CAO”). The applicant was never served with a copy of the report. On the same day, after having been kept for several hours in police custody, the applicant was released, subject to an undertaking to appear at the police station again on 14 January 2013. The applicant was brought before the Nasimi District Court on the aforementioned date. By its decision of 14 January 2013 the court convicted the applicant under Article   298.2 of the CAO, finding that he had participated in a demonstration which was not organised in accordance with the law, and sentenced him to a fine of 500 Azerbaijani New Manats (AZN) (approximately 500   euros (EUR)). According to the applicant, he had insisted on hiring a lawyer of his own choice, but the judge of the first-instance court had disregarded his request. The first-instance court relied heavily on the administrative offence report issued in respect of the applicant. According to the applicant, the only witnesses questioned during the court hearings were police officers who had not been involved in his arrest. Members of the public were not allowed to attend the court hearing, even though the court had not taken any formal decision to close the hearing to the public. The applicant lodged an appeal before the Baku Court of Appeal, arguing that his conviction had violated his rights because the demonstration in which he had participated had been peaceful. The applicant also complained that his arrest had been unlawful and that the hearing before the first ‑ instance court had not been fair. He asked the Baku Court of Appeal to quash the first-instance court’s decision in his case. By its decisions of 25   January 2013 the Baku Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal and upheld the first-instance court’s ruling. 2.     Application no. 52022/13 lodged on 13 March 2013 This application concerns the applicant’s participation in the demonstration of 26 January 2013. According to the applicant, the organisers of the 26 January 2013 demonstration had not given a formal notice to the relevant authorities about the planned demonstration. Information about the demonstration had been disseminated through Facebook or through the press. The demonstration was intended to be peaceful and was conducted in a peaceful manner. The participants were protesting the use of force by police against participants of previous demonstrations. The demonstration was dispersed by the police. The applicant was arrested during the dispersal and was taken to a police station. According to the applicant, he was not given an opportunity to contact his relatives. He was not informed promptly about the reasons for his arrest. The applicant’s rights were not properly explained to him and he was not given access to a lawyer. On the day of his arrest, an administrative offence report was drawn up in respect of the applicant. The report stated that the applicant had committed an administrative offence under Article 298.2 of the CAO. The applicant was never served with a copy of the report or with other materials in his case-file. The applicant was brought before the Nasimi District Court on the day of his arrest. By its decision of 26 January 2013 the court convicted the applicant under Article 298.2 of the CAO, finding that he had participated in a demonstration which had not been organised in accordance with the law, and sentenced him to a fine of AZN 400 (approximately EUR 400). According to the applicant, he had insisted on hiring a lawyer of his own choice, but the judge of the first-instance court had disregarded his request. The first-instance court relied heavily on the administrative offence report issued in respect of the applicant. Members of the public were not allowed to attend the court hearing, even though the court had not taken any formal decision to close the hearing to the public. The applicant lodged an appeal before the Baku Court of Appeal, arguing that his conviction had violated his rights because the demonstration in which he had participated had been peaceful. The applicant also complained that his arrest had been unlawful and that the hearing before the first ‑ instance court had not been fair. He asked the Baku Court of Appeal to quash the first-instance court’s decision in his case. By its decisions of 6   February 2013 the Baku Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal and upheld the first-instance court’s ruling. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant complains under Article 5 of the Convention that he was not promptly informed about the reasons for his arrest; that he was not given an opportunity to contact his relatives; that his rights, including the right to have a lawyer, were not properly explained to him; and that he was never served with a copy of the administrative offence reports issued against him. 2.     The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that he did not have a fair hearing in the administrative offence proceedings because he was not given sufficient time and facilities to prepare his defence; that he was 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. Also, the applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that his right to a public hearing was violated. 3.     The applicant complains that he was arrested and prosecuted for participating in peaceful demonstrations, in breach of Article 11 of the Convention. The applicant also relies on Article 10 in this respect.   COMMON QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s “administrative” arrest in compliance with domestic procedural rules?   2.     Was Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention applicable under its criminal head to the proceedings in the present cases? If so, did the applicant have a fair and public hearing in the determination of the charge against him, 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 his defence, the opportunity to defend oneself through effective legal assistance, and the questioning of witnesses?   3.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s 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 applicant before being brought to court, the transcripts of the hearings and the applicant’s 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 applicant 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.