Communicated on 26 February 2019

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 17374/16 Nijat Adil oglu PANAHOV and O thers against Azerbaijan lodged on 29 March 2016

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants are a group of Jehovah ’ s Witnesses, a list of whom is set out in the appendix.

The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

On 26 May 2013 the applicants were arrested during a police raid on a religious meeting of Jehovah ’ s Witnesses which took place in Shamkir in the private home of the second applicant. They were taken to the Shamkir District Police Department and were subsequently released after being interrogated for approximately 2 and a half to 3 hours. They were warned not to hold meetings anymore without prior official permission.

On 25 June 2013 the applicants lodged a complaint with the Ganja Administrative-Economic Court against the Shamkir District Police Department, its Deputy Chief and the Ministry of Internal Affairs, asking the court to impose upon the defendants an obligation to formally apologise for unlawful disruption of the religious meeting, refrain from such acts in future, order the release of the applicants, suspend execution of the deportation order and pay the plaintiffs jointly 500 manats (approximately 500 euros at the time) or any other amount to be defined by the court.

On 26 July 2013 the applicants amended their statement of claim by naming only the Shamkir District Police Department as a defendant.

On 27 February 2014 the Ganja Administrative-Economic Court on its own motion amended proceedings by joining the Ministry of Internal Affairs as a third party.

On 9 December 2014 the Ganja Administrative-Economic Court dismissed the applicant ’ s claim.

On 4 February 2015 the applicants lodged an appeal against the decision of the first-instance court.

On 8 May 2015 the Ganja Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants ’ appeal.

On 25 June 2015 the applicants lodged a cassation appeal against the appeal court ’ s decision.

On 6 May 2016 the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the Ganja Court of Appeal.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain under Article 5 of the Convention that their detention was arbitrary and therefore contrary to their rights to liberty and security.

The second applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that unlawful interference by the police in her private apartment violated her right to respect for her private and family life and her home.

The applicants complain under Article 9 read in conjunction with Article 11 of the Convention that 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 3, 5, 8, 9 and 11 of the Convention that they were discriminated against on the ground of their religious belief.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Were the applicants deprived of their liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicants ’ detention ordered “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”?

2. 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? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?

3. 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?

4. Have the applicants suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of their Convention rights on the ground of being a religious minority, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention? In particular, have the applicants been subjected to a difference in treatment by the suspension 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