CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 décembre 2016

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 12 December 2016   FIFTH SECTION Application no 19842/15 Seymur HAZIYEV against Azerbaijan lodged on 10 April 2015 STATEMENT OF FACTS THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Seymur Haziyev, is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1982 and lives in Baku. He is represented before the Court by Mr   A.   Ismayılov, a lawyer practising in Azerbaijan. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant was an independent journalist and an active member of the Popular Front Party. At around noon on 29 August 2014, when he was on his way to work, a certain M.H. approached the applicant near a bus stop asking him why he had not replied to his messages sent via Facebook. The applicant, who did not know M.H., answered that he had not replied to him because he had not probably seen his messages. Immediately after that answer, M.H. physically assaulted the applicant by punching him in the face. At that moment the applicant began defending himself and hit M.H. with a water bottle that he had just bought from the market. The applicant then left the scene of the incident. At that moment he saw a police car and immediately asked the police officers for help. At around 12.30 p.m. on the same day the applicant was taken to the Absheron District Police Office. At 2.40 p.m. on the same day an investigator issued a record of the applicant’s detention as a suspect. The applicant was suspected of committing the criminal offence of hooliganism under Article 221.3 of the Criminal Code. On 30 August 2014 the applicant was charged under Article 221.3 (hooliganism) of the Criminal Code. On the same day the Absheron District Court, relying on the official charge brought against the applicant and the prosecutor’s request to apply the preventive measure of remand in custody, ordered the applicant’s detention pending trial for a period of two months, calculating the period of detention from 29 August 2014. The court justified the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody by the gravity of the charge, as well as the risk of re-offending and obstructing the investigation’s functioning by influencing other participants in the criminal proceedings. On 1 September 2014 the applicant appealed against that decision, claiming that there had been no justification for the application of the preventive measure of detention pending trial. He submitted in this respect that there was no evidence in the case file proving the existence of any risk of re-offending or obstructing the investigation’s functioning. On 12 September 2014 the Sumgayit Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the first-instance court’s decision was justified. On 30 September 2014 the applicant lodged a request to be released on bail or placed under house arrest instead of in pre-trial detention. He argued in that connection that there were no grounds justifying his continued detention. On 2 October 2014 the Absheron District Court dismissed the request, finding that there was no need to change the preventive measure of detention pending trial. On 13 October 2014 the Sumgayit Court of Appeal upheld the first ‑ instance court’s decision. On 27 October 2014 the bill of indictment was sent to the Absheron District Court for trial. On 11 November 2014 the applicant lodged a request with the trial court asking for his placement under house arrest instead of in pre-trial detention. He also complained that despite the fact that his pre-trial detention period had expired on 29 October 2014 he had not been released from detention.   On 11 November 2014 the Absheron District Court dismissed the applicant’s request, finding that his detention was lawful. The first-instance court’s decision was not open to appeal. On 20 November 2014 the Absheron District Court held a preliminary hearing in which it decided, inter alia, that the preventive measure of remand in custody in respect of the applicant should remain unchanged. On 29 January 2015 the Absheron District Court found the applicant guilty under Article 221.3 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. COMPLAINTS Relying on Article 5 of the Convention, the applicant complains that his detention after 29 October 2014 was unlawful, as it was not based on any court order. He also complains that the domestic courts failed to justify his detention pending trial and that there were no relevant and sufficient reasons for his continued detention. The applicant further complains under Article 13 and 14 of the Convention that he had no effective domestic remedy and that he was discriminated against on the ground of his political opinions and journalistic activity.     QUESTIONS 1.     Was the applicant’s detention during the period between 29 October and 11 November 2014 in compliance with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     Did the domestic courts give sufficient and relevant reasons for the applicant’s detention for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? Did they consider alternative measures to the applicant’s continued detention?   3.     Were the restrictions imposed by the State in the present case, purportedly pursuant to Article 5 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by that provision, contrary to Article 18 of the Convention?