CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 31 octobre 2017

.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 } .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 } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sA56BACAB { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .s13783063 { width:6.24pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3537C2D6 { font-weight:normal }   Communicated on 31 October 2017   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 66477/12 Arif TAGIYEV and Others against Azerbaijan lodged on 21 September 2012 STATEMENT OF FACTS The seven individual applicants whose particulars set out in the appendix belong to the Jehovah’s Witnesses organisation and the eighth applicant is a local community of Jehovah’s Witnesses (“the applicant community”). They are represented before the Court by Mr   R.   Cook, Mr A. Carbonneau and Mr   J.   Wise, lawyers practising in the United Kingdom, France and Georgia respectively. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. Under the current domestic legislation, legal entities and individual persons must obtain permission from the State Committee for Work with Religious Associations ( Dini Qurumlarla İş Üzrə Dövlət Komitəsi ‑ hereinafter referred to as “the Committee”) before importing any religious literature. The eighth applicant applied for such permission on several occasions, but the Committee had restricted the import of some titles and prohibited the import of others. Domestic legal proceedings challenging the Committee’s orders 1.     First set of proceedings (in respect of orders dated 13 October 2010 and 23   November 2010) On an unspecified date the first, fourth and eighth applicants lodged a claim against the Committee with the Sabail District Court, asking the court inter alia to nullify the Committee’s decisions of 13 October 2010 and 23   November 2010 regarding the restriction of the import of certain titles of religious literature and the prohibition of the import of others. On 24 January 2011 the Sabail District Court rejected the claim, finding no violation as the Committee had acted within the sphere of authority vested in it by the law. On an unspecified date the applicants lodged an appeal against that decision. On 20 April 2011 the Baku Appeal Court quashed the decision of the first-instance court and sent the case for re-trial to the Baku Administrative ‑ Economic Court No. 1. On 9 September 2011 the Baku Administrative-Economic Court No. 1 partially granted the claim by rejecting the claims for pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damages and imposing on the Committee an obligation to allow the import of the literature sought by the eighth applicant without restriction. On an unspecified date the Committee lodged an appeal against that decision. On 18 January 2012 the Baku Appeal Court granted the appeal and quashed the decision of the first-instance court in part relating to imposition on the Committee of an obligation to allow the import of the literature. Having considered expert opinions submitted by the Committee stating that some of the titles on the list for importation contained passages exhorting religious hatred against Christians and Jews, the court found that the defendant had lawfully exercised its right under the legislation. On 18 April 2012 the Supreme Court dismissed a cassation appeal by the plaintiffs and upheld the decision of the appellate court. 2.     Second set of proceedings (in respect of orders of l6 and 24   December 2010 and 7 January 2011) On an unspecified date the second, fifth, seventh and eighth applicants lodged a claim against the Committee with the Baku Administrative ‑ Economic Court No. 1, asking the court to nullify the Committee’s restrictions on importation issued on l6 and 24 December 2010 and 7   January 2011. On 3 March 2011 the Baku Administrative-Economic Court No. 1 issued an order whereby the claim was transferred to the Baku Administrative ‑ Economic Court No. 2 for reasons of territorial jurisdiction. On 19 October 2011 the Baku Administrative-Economic Court No. 2 rejected the claim, as the applicant community had previously been allowed to import religious literature in quantities sufficient for operational purposes. Following the eighth applicant’s admission of the fact that the quantities allowed had fully met the needs of the community, the court found that the inevitable conclusion was therefore that the excess quantity had been intended for distribution to third parties, even though religious proselytising was prohibited under domestic legislation. On an unspecified date the applicants lodged an appeal against that decision. On 25 January 2012 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants’ appeal. The court stated that by not allowing the eighth applicant to import the religious literature in the quantities requested, the Committee had lawfully carried out its obligations pursuant to the legislation for the purposes of defending the interests and the rights of third parties. On 1 June 2012 the Supreme Court dismissed a cassation appeal by the applicant community and upheld the decision of the appellate court. 3.     Third set of proceedings (in respect of orders of 20 April 2011 and 13 May 2011) On an unspecified date, the third, sixth and eighth applicants lodged a claim against the Committee with the Baku Administrative-Economic Court No. 2, asking the court to nullify the Committee’s restrictions on importation imposed on 20 April 2011 and 13   May 2011. On 10 November 2011 the first-instance court rejected the claim, as the applicant community had been previously allowed to import religious literature in quantities sufficient for operational purposes. On an unspecified date the applicants lodged an appeal against that decision. On 25 January 2012 the Baku Appeal Court dismissed the appeal lodged by the applicants. On 11 April 2012 the Supreme Court dismissed a cassation appeal lodged by the applicants and upheld the decision of the appellate court. COMPLAINTS The applicants complain under Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention that the domestic authorities’ restrictions and ban on the import of religious literature constituted an unlawful interference with their right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression. The applicants further complain under Article 14, read in conjunction with Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention, that the refusal to allow the import of religious literature was motivated by discrimination on account of their religious beliefs. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ freedom of religion, within the meaning of Article 9 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 9 § 2 of the Convention?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   10   § 2 of the Convention?   3.     Have the applicants suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of their Convention rights on the grounds that they belonged to a religious minority, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention? In particular, have the applicants been subjected to a difference in treatment with regard to importing religious literature? If so, did that difference in treatment pursue a legitimate aim, and did it have reasonable justification?   Appendix         Arif TAGIYEV is an Azerbaijani national, resident in Baku     Sahiba AGAYEVA is an Azerbaijani national, resident in Baku     Fazila BUTAYEVA is an Azerbaijani national, resident in Baku     Galina LUPTAKOVA is an Azerbaijani national, resident in Baku     Pakizat MALIKOVA is an Azerbaijani national, resident in Baku     Bakhtiyar MAMMADOV is an Azerbaijani national, resident in Baku     Targul SEYIDOVA is an Azerbaijani national, resident in Baku     RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES is a local religious community with its place of business in Baku