CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 novembre 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 } .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 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s5E9AE8E6 { margin-right:9pt; margin-left:9pt; border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse; } .sF5C9E8B1 { height:46.3pt } .sD1CDDC62 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s2490CDBC { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s7E985A6E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:8pt } .s8DB21C27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s26ADB50A { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sF4B5263B { height:25.7pt } .s2F4AF114 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6CF83D49 { margin-left:11.67pt; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .s898DAE93 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA0B2759 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sC4A995C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; font-size:8pt } .sB71F2881 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFD306575 { height:35.55pt } .s23385D7A { height:23.55pt } .sBCA334AF { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7CB6920E { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .s62945D10 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   Communicated on 20 November 2015   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 23551/08 CITIZENS LABOUR RIGHTS PROTECTION LEAGUE against Azerbaijan and 4 other applications (see list appended) The applicants are a non-governmental organisation based in Azerbaijan and Azerbaijani nationals. They are represented before the Court by various lawyers practising in Azerbaijan (see Appendix). The circumstances of the cases The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. 1.     Application no. 23551/08 lodged on 21 April 2008 by Citizens Labour Rights Protection League The applicant (the non-governmental organisation Citizens Labour Rights Protection League ) planned a public assembly to be held on 30 May 2007 in Baku. On 23 May 2007 the applicant NGO gave prior notice to the relevant authority, the Baku City Executive Authority (“the BCEA”), about the planned assembly. The applicant informed the BCEA of the assembly’s date, time, place and purpose. According to the notice, the assembly was scheduled to take place from 12 p.m. to 12.30 p.m. on 30 May 2007 at the Sabir Park in Baku. According to the applicant NGO, the assembly was intended to be peaceful and its purpose was to demand protection of freedom of speech and to demand decriminalisation of defamation by repealing Articles 147 and 148 of the Criminal Code. However, by a letter of 29 May 2007 the BCEA refused to authorise the assembly. The BCEA noted that the place indicated by the applicant NGO was close to several public buildings and that “according to the Law on Freedom of Assembly, it was forbidden to hold assemblies within 300 meters’ radius of legislative, executive and judicial authorities’ buildings”. The BCEA also noted that “it would be more useful if, instead of holding a protest, [the applicant NGO] expressed [its] views about issues in question in a civil manner”. It appears that the planned assembly was not eventually held. On 30 May 2007 the applicant NGO lodged an action before the Sabail District Court against the BCEA, arguing that the refusal to authorise the assembly had violated its right to freedom of assembly. By a decision of 12   June 2007 the Sabail District Court refused to examine the action. The court noted that, contrary to Article 149.4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, “the civil action did not contain other information necessary for the correct resolution of the dispute, including [the applicant’s] motions”. The applicant NGO appealed, arguing that its right to freedom of assembly had been violated and that the action lodged before the first-instance court contained all information required by law. By a decision of 28 August 2007 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the Sabail District Court’s decision. The applicant NGO lodged a cassation appeal. On 27 November 2007 the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision. 2.     Application no. 43164/10 lodged on 14 July 2010 by Hafiz Babali, Mammad Ahmadov, Vugar Ismayilov, Jahangir Ismayilov and Fakhraddin Allahverdiyev In 2006 the Khatai District Court declared invalid the sale and purchase of shares in a private company. The higher instance courts upheld the judgment of the Khatai District Court. The applicants in the present case are the shareholders of the company, affected by that judgment. The applicants planned an assembly to be held on 28 September 2008 in Baku. On 16 September 2008 the applicants gave prior notice to the BCEA about the planned assembly. The applicants informed the BCEA of the assembly’s date, time, place and purpose. According to the notice, the assembly was scheduled to take place from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. on 28   September 2008 at a stadium in the Bibiheybet settlement of Baku. According to the applicants, the assembly was intended to be peaceful and its purpose was to protest against allegedly unfair court decisions concerning their ownership of shares in the company N. However, by a letter of 25 September 2008 the BCEA refused to authorise holding of the assembly, noting that it was “impractical”, and advised the applicants “not to hold a protest but to apply to the relevant authorities about issues in question”. It appears that the planned assembly was not eventually held. On 24 November 2008 the applicants lodged an action with the Sabail District Court against the BCEA, arguing that their right to freedom of assembly was violated. By a judgment of 29 December 2008 the Sabail District Court dismissed the applicants’ complaint. The applicants appealed. By a judgment of 19 May 2009 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants’ appeal and upheld the judgment of the Sabail District Court of 29 December 2008. The applicants received the judgment of the Court of Appeal on 6 June 2009. In order to lodge a cassation appeal before the Supreme Court the applicants were required by law to be represented by a lawyer. On 13 July 2009 the applicants filed a request before the Baku Court of Appeal asking for State-funded legal assistance because allegedly they had not had sufficient means to hire a lawyer. By a decision of 5 August 2009 the Court of Appeal granted the applicants’ request for a State-funded lawyer. The applicants received the decision of the Court of Appeal on 17 August 2009. On unspecified date in September 2009 a State-funded lawyer was appointed for the applicants. On 29 September 2009 the applicants, represented by the State-funded lawyer, submitted their cassation appeal against the judgment of 19 May 2009. In a note included in the cassation appeal they asked for the appeal to be admitted for consideration on merits because the State-funded lawyer had been appointed in a belated manner. By a decision of 12 October 2009 the Baku Court of Appeal found that the cassation appeal was inadmissible owing to the expiry of the appeal period. The Court of Appeal noted that the applicants had missed the two months’ time-limit for submission of a cassation appeal set forth by Article   405.0.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court of Appeal calculated the time-limit from 6 June 2009, the date when the applicants received the judgment of the Court of Appeal of 19 May 2009. The applicants appealed against the decision of 12 October 2009. On 15   January 2010 the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal. 3.     Application no. 69483/13 lodged on 17 September 2013 by Mustafa Hajili, Huseyn Malikov and Rafig Dashdamirov The applicants planned an assembly to be held on 22 April 2012 in Baku. On 13 April 2012 the applicants gave prior notice to the BCEA about the planned assembly. The applicants informed the BCEA of the assembly’s date, time, place and purpose. According to the notice, the assembly was scheduled to take place from 12 p.m. to 1 p.m. on 22 April 2012 in front of the BCEA. According to the applicants, the assembly was intended to be peaceful and its purpose was, inter alia , to demand freedom of assembly and political reforms. However, by a letter of 18 April 2012 the BCEA refused to authorise the assembly. The BCEA noted that it had designated a location for another demonstration with a similar cause; therefore the assembly proposed by the applicants was “impractical”. It appears that the planned assembly was not eventually held. On 14 May 2012 the applicants lodged an action with the Baku Administrative Economic Court no. 1 against the BCEA, arguing that their right to freedom of assembly was violated. By a judgment of 28 August 2012 the Baku Administrative Economic Court no. 1 dismissed the applicants’ complaint. The applicants appealed. By a judgment of 13 December 2012 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants’ appeal. By a decision of 13 March 2013 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Court of Appeal of 13 December 2012. 4.     Application no. 76319/13 lodged on 25 October 2013 by Tofig Yagublu and Rafig Manafli The applicants planned an assembly (a march followed by a demonstration) to be held on 22 April 2012 in Baku. On 13 April 2012 the applicants gave prior notice to the BCEA about the planned assembly. The applicants informed the BCEA of the assembly’s date, time, place and purpose. According to the notice, the assembly was scheduled to take place from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. on 22 April 2012. The applicants proposed three places for holding of the assembly and asked the BCEA to agree on one of these places. The assembly was intended to be peaceful and its purpose was, inter alia , to demand freedom of assembly and political reforms, to protest against corruption and violation of property rights. However, by a letter of 18 April 2012 the BCEA refused to authorise the assembly at the places indicated by the applicants and proposed another place on the outskirts of Baku. The BCEA noted that “the places indicated [by the organisers] were areas with intense traffic; therefore it was not possible to hold assemblies there”. It appears that following the refusal of authorisation the applicants decided to hold the assembly at the place proposed by the BCEA. On 14 May 2012 the applicants lodged an action with the Baku Administrative Economic Court no. 1 complaining that, by refusing to authorise the assembly in one of the three places they proposed, the BCEA had violated their right to freedom of assembly. The applicants argued in particular that one of the places they proposed, a square next to the Tabriz cinema, was on the list of the places specifically designated by the BCEA for public assemblies. By a judgment of 29 August 2012 the Baku Administrative Economic Court no. 1 dismissed the applicants’ complaint. The applicants appealed. By a judgment of 20 December 2012 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants’ appeal. By a decision of 15 May 2013 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Court of Appeal of 20 December 2012. 5.     Application no. 30456/14 lodged on 5 April 2014 by Gulaga Aslanli The applicant and some other persons planned an assembly (a march) to be held on 13 October 2012 in Baku. On 5 October 2012 the applicant and other organisers gave prior notice to the BCEA about the planned assembly. The applicant informed the BCEA of the assembly’s date, time, place and purpose. According to the notice, the march was scheduled to take place from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. on 13 October 2012 on the Parliament Avenue in the direction of the Parliament building. The assembly was intended to be peaceful and its purpose was to demand early elections to the Parliament. By a letter of 10 October 2012 the BCEA refused to authorise the assembly at the place indicated by the applicant and proposed another place on the outskirts of Baku. The BCEA noted that “the places indicated [by the organisers] were areas with intense traffic; therefore it was not possible to hold assemblies there”. It appears that the planned march was not eventually held. On 11 October 2012 the applicant lodged an action with the Baku Administrative Economic Court no. 1 against the BCEA, arguing that their right to freedom of assembly was violated. By a judgment of 17 April 2013 the Baku Administrative-Economic Court no. 1 dismissed the applicant’s complaint. The applicant appealed. By a judgment of 13 August 2013 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. By a decision of 20 November 2013 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Court of Appeal. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicants in applications nos. 23551/08 and 43164/10 complain that their right to access to a court guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention was violated. The applicants in applications nos. 69483/13 and 76319/13 complain under Article 6 of the Convention that they did not have a fair hearing in the proceedings they brought against the BCEA. They complain in particular that their right to a reasoned judgment was violated. 2.     The applicants complain that the refusals by the BCEA to authorise the assemblies they organised (applications nos. 23551/08, 43164/10 and 69483/13) or to authorise the assemblies in places where they intended to hold them (applications nos. 76319/13 and 30456/14) infringed their right to freedom of assembly as guaranteed by Article 11 of the Convention. The applicants in applications nos. 23551/08, 43164/10 and 69483/13 also rely on Article 10 in this respect. COMMON QUESTIONs 1.     Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the proceedings in the present cases?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ 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? Was the interference proportionate?   3.     The parties are requested to submit copies of the following: (a)     all documents relating to the proceedings before the domestic courts, including the applicants’ complaints, appeals and requests, and the transcripts of the hearings; (b)     all documents relating to the organisation of the public assemblies, in particular the notifications submitted by the organisers of the assemblies to the relevant local executive authorities, and the official responses the organisers received from the relevant local executive authorities. CASE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS 1.     Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the applicants in applications nos. 23551/08 and 43164/10 have access to a court?   2.     Was the right of the applicants in applications nos. 69483/13, 76319/13 and 30456/14 to a reasoned judgment respected? No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant name date of birth place of residence Represented by Notes First-instance decisions Final decisions   23551/08* 21/04/2008 CITIZENS LABOUR RIGHTS PROTECTION LEAGUE Baku Sahib MAMMADOV Proceedings following the authorities’ refusal to authorise holding of a public assembly on 30 May 2007 Inadmissibility decision by the Sabail District Court of 12 June 2007 Decision of the Supreme Court of 27 November 2007   43164/10 14/07/2010 Hafiz BABALI 1971, Sumgayit Mammad AHMADOV 1972, Baku Vugar ISMAYILOV 1971, Baku Jahangir ISMAYILOV 1960, Sumgayit Fakhraddin ALLAHVERDIYEV 1955, Baku Intigam ALIYEV Nurlana ALIYEVA Proceedings following the authorities’ refusal to authorise holding of a public assembly on 28 September 2008 Judgment of the Sabail District Court of 29 December 2008 Inadmissibility decision by the Supreme Court of 15 January 2010   69483/13 17/09/2013 Mustafa HAJILI 1972, Baku Huseyn MALIKOV 1962, Baku Rafig DASHDAMIROV 1960, Baku Ruslan MUSTAFAZADE Asabali MUSTAFAYEV Proceedings following the authorities’ refusal to authorise holding of a public assembly on 22 April 2012 Judgment of the Baku Administrative-Economic Court no. 1 of 28 August 2012 Decision of the Supreme Court of 13 March 2013 (sent to the applicants on 11 April 2013)   76319/13 25/10/2013 Tofig YAGUBLU 1961, Baku Rafig MANAFLI 1958, Baku Ruslan MUSTAFAZADE Asabali MUSTAFAYEV Proceedings following the authorities’ refusal to authorise holding of a public assembly on 22 April 2012 Judgment of the Baku Administrative-Economic Court no. 1 of 29 August 2012 Decision of the Supreme Court of 15 May 2013     30456/14* 05/04/2014 Gulaga ASLANLI 1952, Baku Ruslan MUSTAFAZADE Asabali MUSTAFAYEV Proceedings following the authorities’ refusal to authorise holding of a public assembly on 13 October 2012 Judgment of the Baku Administrative-Economic Court no. 1 of 17 April 2013 Decision of the Supreme Court of 20 November 2013 APPENDIX