CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 octobre 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .sC1A87EE6 { width:109.9%; border-collapse:collapse } .s72C2249F { width:10.48%; 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 } .s91F56439 { width:29.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s37B231 { width:20%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s95E771B1 { width:10.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sDCC82C6A { width:29.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s134F8E45 { width:20%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 12 November 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 31633/18 Sahil RZAYEV and Others against Azerbaijan lodged on 23 June 2018 communicated on 25 October 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants were members of an unregistered religious movement, “ Müsəlman Birliyi ” (“the MB”). The MB was established in the beginning of 2015 by Taleh Bagirov (who is one of the applicants in application no.   47347/18 pending before the Court). On 5 November 2015 the applicants were arrested during a dispersal of an unauthorised demonstration protesting against the arrest of the deputy chairman of the MB. By judgments of the Sabunchu District Court adopted on 6   November 2015, the applicants were convicted of non-compliance with a lawful order of the police, an offence under Article 310 of the Code of Administrative Offences (“the CAO”). They were sentenced to imprisonment sentences (“administrative detention”) for periods varying from ten to thirty days. On 26 November 2015 the so-called “Nardaran events” occurred. On that day armed police officers carried out an operation during which members and supporters of the MB, including Taleh Bagirov, were arrested. Later they were convicted of a number of grave criminal offences (the mentioned operation, arrests and convictions are the subject of application no. 47347/18 pending before the Court). The applicants in the present application were not among those who were arrested during the Nardaran events. On the next day, 27 November 2015, the Sabunchu district prosecutor lodged an appeal ( protest ) against the Sabunchu District Court’s above-mentioned judgments of 6 November 2015 and asked the appellate court to quash them because the actions of the applicants were to be qualified as criminal offences under Articles 221.3 (hooliganism with the use of objects as weapons) and 315.2 (resistance to or violence against public officials) of the Criminal Code. By final decisions adopted on 28 and 30 November 2015 the appellate court allowed the appeals and quashed the first-instance court’s judgments of 6 November 2015 in respect of the applicants. On an unspecified date the applicants were charged under the above-mentioned Articles of the Criminal Code. Later the charges against them were requalified and they were convicted under Articles 233 (organising or actively participating in actions causing a breach of public order) and 315.2 (resistance to or violence against public officials) of the Criminal Code. Applicant Elvin Bunyadov was additionally charged and convicted under Article 228.4 (unlawfully obtaining and carrying gas, cold or throwing weapons) of the Criminal Code. The applicants were sentenced to several years of imprisonment each. When determining the definitive sentence in respect of each applicant, the trial court deducted the length of the imprisonment sentences (“administrative detention”) imposed by the Sabunchu District Court’s judgments of 6 November 2015 from the imprisonment sentences the trial court had applied under the Criminal Code. A final decision in the case was delivered by the Supreme Court on 28   November 2017 (served on the applicants on 23 December 2017). The applicants complain under Article 6 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against them were in breach of such fair-trial guarantees as the right to be afforded adequate time and facilities to prepare their defence and the right to adequate legal assistance. They also complain under Article 11 of the Convention that the dispersal of the demonstration and their arrests and convictions were in breach of their right to freedom of assembly. The applicants further complain under Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention that they were tried and punished twice for the same offence – first in the administrative-offence proceedings and then in the criminal proceedings. They allege in particular that by the time the prosecutor lodged his appeals seeking the quashing of the applicants’ convictions under the CAO, the Sabunchu District Court’s judgments had become final and that, moreover, some of the applicants had fully served their sentences of “administrative detention”. The applicants also raised a complaint under Article 18 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Articles 6 and 11 of the Convention and Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention, alleging that the criminal proceedings against them were brought immediately after the Nardaran events in order to subject them to harsher sentences.     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? 2.     Were the applicants afforded adequate time and facilities to prepare their defence, as required by Article 6   §   3   (b) of the Convention? 3.     Were the applicants able to defend themselves through legal assistance of their own choosing, as required by Article   6 §   3   (c) of the Convention? 4.     Were the applicants afforded an adequate opportunity to communicate confidentially with their lawyers during the trial and to effectively participate in the court hearings? 5.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ freedom of assembly, within the meaning of Article 11   §   1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 11   §   2? 6. Have the applicants been tried, convicted or punished twice for the same offence in the territory of the respondent State, as prohibited by Article   4 of Protocol No.   7? 7.     Were the prosecutor’s appeals against the Sabunchu District Court’s judgments of 6 November 2015 in the administrative-offence proceedings lodged within the time-limits set out by the domestic law? 8.     Were the restrictions imposed by the State on the applicants, purportedly permitted under Articles 6 and/or 11 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by those provisions, contrary to Article 18 of the Convention? 9. In the circumstances of the present case, does Article 18 apply in conjunction with Article   4 of Protocol No.   7?   If so, has there been a violation of Article 18 taken in conjunction with Article   4 of Protocol No.   7?   The parties are requested to provide documentary evidence in support of their replies and submissions, including copies of transcripts of the court hearings and the applicants’ appeals and requests.       APPENDIX No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Sahil Khalid oglu RZAYEV 1989 Azerbaijani Baku 2. Latif Suleyman oglu AHMADOV 1992 Azerbaijani Baku 3. Anar Yusif oglu ALIYEV 1990 Azerbaijani Baku 4. Elvin Hatif oglu BUNYADOV 1990 Azerbaijani Baku 5. Niftali Ashraf oglu VALIYEV 1960 Azerbaijani Baku