CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 }     Communicated on 22 June 2015   FIRST SECTION Application no. 6811/14 Fuad HAJIYEV against Azerbaijan lodged on 11 January 2014 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Fuad Hajiyev, is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1987 and lives in Baku. He is represented before the Court by Mr   H.   Hasanov, a lawyer practising in Azerbaijan. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant is an opposition-oriented activist. He is a member of an opposition movement Nida. At the material time, residential buildings in the area of Baku where the applicant lived were being demolished, apparently following the authorities’ reconstruction plan. Although, according to the reconstruction plan, the amount of compensation to be paid to the residents was 1,500 Azerbaijani manats (AZN) per square metre, the local executive authority announced that the residents would receive only 1,000 AZN per square metre. The applicant, who was a resident of one of the buildings to be demolished, and some other people affected by the reconstruction plan decided to hold a demonstration on 6 July 2013 to protest against the reduced compensation. On 3 July 2013 the applicant sent a letter to the local executive authority informing it about the intended demonstration. According to the applicant, on 4 July 2013 he was taken from his home to Police Station no. 37 of the Khatai District Police Office for a “conversation”. However, in the police station an “administrative offence report” ( inzibati xəta haqqında protokol ) was drawn up in his respect. The report stated that the applicant 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”). The applicant was brought before the Khatai District Court on the day of his arrest. The court found that the applicant had deliberately failed to comply with the lawful order of police officers to stop organising an unlawful demonstration and distributing flyers inviting people to participate in that assembly. The court convicted him under Article 310.1 of the CAO and sentenced him to a ten days’ “administrative detention”. Only one police officer was questioned as a witness. The court’s decision was heavily based on the police officer’s statements and on the administrative offence report drawn up in the applicant’s respect. The applicant lodged an appeal before the Baku Court of Appeal, arguing that he had not committed any offence. On 11 July 2013 the Baku Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal and upheld the first-instance court’s decision. COMPLAINT The applicant complains that his arrest and conviction prior to a peaceful public gathering, which he had intended to organise and participate in, was an unlawful interference with his right to freedom of assembly under Article   11 of the Convention.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     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 that interference prescribed by law and necessary, in terms of Article 11 § 2?   2.     The parties are requested to submit copies of all documents relating to the administrative proceedings, including the administrative offence report, any statements made by the applicant before being brought to court, and the transcripts of the hearings. The parties are also requested to submit copies of all documents relating to the organisation of the demonstration of 6 July 2013.