CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 mars 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } Published on 27 March 2023   FIRST SECTION Application no. 18466/15 Ali ABDULLAYEV against Azerbaijan and 2 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 10 March 2023 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applications concern arrest and conviction of the applicants allegedly aimed at punishing them for plastering posters calling to free certain political prisoners. On various dates during January 2015, the applicants were arrested and convicted to administrative detention (the first and second applicants, for one month and the third applicant, for twenty days) under Articles 296 (minor hooliganism) and 310 (failure to obey the lawful order of a police officer) of the Code of Administrative Offences. According to the official records, the second and third applicants were called to a police office in connection with posters they had posted on the streets of Sheki. However, they started shouting and swearing loudly in the street and when asked by the police officers to stop doing so, they did not obey the request. The first applicant was arrested when he went to the police station to obtain information about the second applicant and, after being informed about the latter’s arrest, started shouting and swearing, and when asked by the police officers to stop doing so, he disobeyed. According to the applicants, all three had posted posters calling to free certain political prisoners. However, neither of them shouted, swore or disobeyed the police. The applicants complain under Article 5 § 1, Articles 10 and 18 of the Convention that their arrest and conviction was unlawful and pursued aim unrelated to the formal grounds as the purpose of their arrest and conviction was to punish them for posting the political posters in question. The applicants also complain invoking Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (d) that the domestic proceedings against them were unfair in particular because they were not given adequate time and facilities for preparation of their defence, the decisions of the domestic courts lacked adequate reasoning, the courts had based their findings only on the prosecution’s evidence, the applicants’ witnesses or bystanders were not called and heard, and the hearings were not held in public. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Were the applicants deprived of their liberty in breach of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention? Were the applicants’ detentions ordered “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”? 2.     Did the applicants have a fair and public hearing in the determination of the charges against them, in accordance with Article   6 §§   1 and 3 of the Convention? In particular, were the applicants afforded adequate time and facilities to prepare their defence and able to obtain the attendance of witnesses on their behalf? Was the applicants’ right to a reasoned decision respected? 3.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, in particular their right to impart information and ideas, 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? 4.     Were the restrictions imposed by the State in the present case, purportedly pursuant to Article 10 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by that provision, contrary to Article   18 of the Convention? APPENDIX List of applications No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 18466/15 Abdullayev v. Azerbaijan 07/04/2015 Ali Veysel oglu ABDULLAYEV 1962 Shaki Azerbaijani Khalid BAGIROV 2. 18492/15 Abdulkarimov v. Azerbaijan 07/04/2015 Mubariz Asabali oglu ABDULKARIMOV 1971 Shaki Azerbaijani Khalid BAGIROV 3. 18536/15 Abdurahmanli v. Azerbaijan 07/04/2015 Rauf Shafayat oglu ABDURAHMANLI 1977 Shaki Azerbaijani Khalid BAGIROV