CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 mars 2019

.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 } .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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   Communicated on 6 March 2019   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 42651/11 Teymur VALIYEV and Others against Azerbaijan lodged on 11 July 2011 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicants are Jehovah’s Witnesses as listed in the appendix. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. On 18 December 2010 the applicants were arrested during a police raid on a Jehovah’s Witness religious meeting, which took place in Ganja in the second applicant’s home, and were then taken to the Nizami District Police Department. After approximately seven hours at the police station, the applicants were taken to the Nizami District Court. The court on the same day, by separate decisions, found the applicants guilty of violating the legislative rules on organising and holding religious meetings under Articles 299.0.2, 299.0.3 and 299.0.4 of the Code of Administrative Offences. It fined the third and fourth applicants 150   Azerbaijani manats (AZN – approximately 130 euros (EUR) at the time) each and the second applicant AZN 100   (approximately EUR 90). The first applicant’s sentence was commuted to an administrative warning as he had a disability. On unspecified dates the applicants lodged appeals against those decisions. Relying on Articles 8, 9, 10, 11 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicants argued that they had not been engaged in unlawful activities and that there had been no legitimate cause for their arrest. On 14 January 2011 the Ganja Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals in separate decisions and upheld the decisions of the first-instance court. The appeal court stated that the applicants had been holding an unauthorised religious meeting outside the religious organisation’s place of activity, which was set in Baku, contrary to the requirements of the domestic legislation on religious entities. It was within the State’s margin of appreciation to limit such activities, both under Article 9 § 2 of the Convention and the Constitution. COMPLAINTS The second applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention of unlawful interference by the police in raiding her private apartment, violating her right to respect for her private and family life and home. The applicants complain under Article 9, read in conjunction with Article   11 of the Convention, that the interruption and termination of their religious service by the police constituted an interference with their rights to freedom of religion and freedom of assembly. The applicants complain under Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Articles 8, 9 and 11, that they were discriminated against on the grounds of their religious belief. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the second applicant’s right to respect for her private and family life and home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the fact that the police entered her flat on 18 December 2010? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?   2.     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?   3.     Have the applicants suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of their Convention rights on the grounds of being a religious minority, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention? In particular, have the applicants been subjected to a difference in treatment owing to the restricting of their religious meeting and being detained for holding such a meeting? If so, did that difference in treatment pursue a legitimate aim and did it have a reasonable justification?   APPENDIX       Teymur VALIYEV is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1955, lives in Baku and is represented by R. Cook;       Yegana GAHRAMANOVA is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1959, lives in Ganja and is represented by R. Cook;       Saladdin MAMMADOV is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1961, lives in Ganja and is represented by R. Cook;       Rashad NIFTALIYEV is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1987, lives in Ganja and is represented by R. Cook.