CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 mai 2024

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s72C2EE24 { width:93.74%; border-collapse:collapse } .sB52EFD4E { width:8.28%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE72A2AC3 { width:25.78%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC377AFCD { width:29.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s488884BC { width:19.78%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD7B6BB9E { width:17.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s133B3A0C { width:8.28%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF1C834A { width:25.78%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8D582E39 { width:29.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s59BCD000 { width:19.78%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5D6D7FF5 { width:17.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } Published on 21 May 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 12671/16 Anar MAMMADLI and Others against Azerbaijan lodged on 26 February 2016 communicated on 3 May 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The present application primarily concerns the alleged unfairness of criminal proceedings against the applicants. At the material time the applicants were civil society activists engaged in monitoring of elections. The first and second applicants were the heads of two non-governmental organisations – the Election Monitoring and Democracy Studies Centre ( Seçkilərin Monitorinqi və Demokratiyanın Tədrisi Mərkəzi − “the Centre”), and the Volunteers International Cooperation Public Union ( Könüllülərin Beynəlxalq Əməkdaşlığı İctimai Birliyi – “the Public Union”), respectively. The first applicant was also a co ‑ founder of the Centre, together with the third applicant. The dissolution and failure to register the Centre was the subject of the Court’s examination in Election Monitoring Centre and Others v.   Azerbaijan (no.   64733/09, 2   December 2021) and Election Monitoring and Democracy Education Centre and Others v. Azerbaijan ([Committee], no. 70981/11, 12 January 2023). The organisations headed by the first and second applicants monitored the presidential elections of 9 October 2013. On 21 October 2013 the Centre issued critical opinions (statements) about the elections and the situation concerning various freedoms in the country. The Centre also declared that it was going to publish its full report in the first half of November 2013. Shortly after that a criminal case was instituted against the applicants and a search and seizure were carried out in the offices of both organisations. On 16 December 2013 all three applicants were charged with criminal offences under Articles 192.2.2 (illegal entrepreneurship and gaining large ‑ scale profit), 213.1 (large-scale tax evasion) and 308.2 (abuse of power) of the Criminal Code. On the same day the first applicant was formally arrested as a suspect and taken into pre-trial detention for three months (that pre-trial detention was the subject of the Court’s examination in Mammadli v. Azerbaijan (no. 47145/14, 19 April 2018)). The other two applicants were subjected to a preventive measure prohibiting them from leaving their place of residence (they were required to sign a statement not to leave their place of residence). On 22 and 25 November 2013 the bank accounts of the first applicant and of the organisations were frozen. On an unspecified date the applicants were additionally charged with criminal offence under Articles 179.3.2 (large-scale embezzlement) and Article 313 (forgery in public office) of the Criminal Code. On 26 May 2014 the applicants were convicted as charged and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. The first-instance court ordered confiscation of the money that was in the bank accounts of the first applicant and of the Public Union. On 10 December 2014 and 26 August 2015, respectively, the appellate court and the Supreme Court upheld the convictions. Relying on Article 6 of the Convention, the applicants complain, in particular, that their convictions were based on unlawful evidence and were politically motivated, aimed at punishing them for their criticism and at hindering their activity as election monitors; and that the criminal proceedings against them were in breach of various fair-trial guarantees. Relying on Articles 7 and 11 of the Convention, the applicants complain, that the acts of which they were convicted – in particular, the fact that the Centre had operated without being registered, that the grants received by the Centre and the Public Union were not registered, and that the organisations did not pay taxes on the grants they had received – did not constitute a criminal offence under national law. They also complain that the search of the offices and seizure of computers, CDs and other information carriers (equipment) were in breach of the relevant domestic law and of their rights under Article 8 of the Convention. Invoking Articles 10 and 18 of the Convention, the applicants allege that the proceedings against them were brought in order to punish them for and to prevent them from continuing their civil society activity, in particular their activity in the field of election monitoring. The first applicant further complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the freezing of his bank accounts and the confiscation of the money in those bank accounts was an unlawful interference with his property right.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular: (i) was the applicants’ right to a reasoned decision respected? (ii) were the principles of equality of arms and adversarial proceedings respected? (iii) were the applicants afforded an adequate opportunity to contest the evidence against them, and to adduce evidence in support of their line of defence and to have such evidence assessed by the court?   2.     Did the acts of which the applicants were convicted constitute a criminal offence under national law at the time when they were committed, as required by Article   7 of the Convention?   3.     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their private life or correspondence, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, on account of the search and seizure measures conducted during the criminal proceedings against them?   4.     Were the restrictions imposed by the State on the applicants, purportedly for a legitimate aim 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?   5.     Has there been an interference with the first applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1? Has the first applicant been deprived of his possessions in accordance with the conditions provided for by law and in accordance with the principles of international law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1?   The parties are requested to provide documentary evidence in support of their replies and submissions, including copies of the judgments and decisions of the domestic courts, transcripts of the court hearings and the applicants’ appeals and requests.     APPENDIX List of applicants: No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Anar Asaf oglu MAMMADLI 1978 Azerbaijani Baku 2. Elnur Akif oglu ABBASOV 1984 Azerbaijani Baku 3. Bashir Suleyman oglu SULEYMANLI 1980 Azerbaijani Baku