Communicated on 30 August 2017

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 58717/10 Famil NASIROV and others against Azerbaijan lodged on 7 October 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants whose particulars listed in the appendix, belong to Jehovah ’ s Witnesses .

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

A. Baku incident

On 3 March 2010 the first and second applicants were preaching door-to-door in an apartment block in Baku. While they were still inside the apartment block three uniformed police officers approached them and asked why they were bothering people. The police officers took the first and second applicants to the Khatai District Police Department where reports were drawn up and they were asked to remove the literature they were carrying from their bags. After three hours at the police station the two applicants were taken to the Khatai District Court.

On the same date and by separate decisions the Khatai District Court found the first and second applicants guilty of distributing literature which had not been ap proved for import under Article 300.0.2 of the Code of Administrative Offences (hereinafter referred to as “the CAO”) and fined each of them 200 Azerbaijani manats (AZN – approximately 200 euros (EUR) at the time).

On 12 March 2010 the two applicants lodged appeals against those decisions. Relying on various Article s 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 had been arrested without legitimate cause.

On 8 April 2010 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the first applicant ’ s appeal and upheld the decision of the first-instance court. The appeal court stated that under the relevant legislation the books which he had been distributing had been allowed only for the internal purposes of the religious organisation in question at its registered legal address, while he had been distributing the books in public places to people who were not members of a Jehovah ’ s Witness congregation.

On 31 May 2010 the Baku Court of Appeal quashed the decision of the first-instance court in respect of the second applicant on the grounds that it had not assessed whether the books she had been distributing had been approved for import. It returned the case for fresh consideration.

On 1 July 2010 the Khatai District Court found the second applicant guilty of distributing literature not approved for import under Article 300.0.2 of the CAO. However, the court discontinued the proceedings without applying a penalty due to expiration of time-limit and ordered the confiscated books to be returned to the second applicant.

On 13 July 2010 the second applicant lodged an appeal against that decision, reiterating the submissions she had made during the first appeal.

On 27 July 2010 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the second applicant ’ s appeal and upheld the decision of the first-instance court. The appellate court stated that although the books she had been distributing had not been banned by the State Committee for Work with Religious Associations ( Dini Qurumlarla İş Üzrə Dövlət Komitəsi – hereinafter referred to as “the DQIUDK”), they were only allowed for the internal purposes of the religious organisation in question at its registered legal address. They were not allowed to be distributed in public places.

B. Aghstafa incident

On 26 April 2010 the third, fourth and fifth applicants were preaching door-to-door in the town of Aghstafa and then went to a friend ’ s home. While there, three or four police officers knocked on the door looking for “women with sport bags.” The police officers searched the women ’ s bags and seized approximately 400 assorted books which the women had obtained previously at a religious assembly for further distribution. Afterwards, the third, fourth and fifth applicants were taken to Aghstafa District police station where they were detained for approximately six hours and released after midnight. The next morning, 27 April 2010, the three applicants returned to the police station as ordered and were taken to the Aghstafa District Court.

On the same day and by separate decisions the Aghstafa District Court found the three applicants guilty of distributing literature which had not been ap proved for import under Article 300.0.2 of the CAO and fined them AZN 200 (approximately EUR 200 at the time) each.

On 14 May 2010 the third, fourth and fifth applicants lodged appeals against those decisions. Relying on various Articles of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, they argued that they had not been engaged in unlawful activities and had been arrested without legitimate cause.

On 8 June 2010 the Ganja Court of Appeal, by separate decisions, quashed the decisions of the first-instance court in part, ordering that all but one title be returned to the Jehovah ’ s Witnesses ’ headquarters in Baku. The appellate court stated that all but one of the books the applicants had been distributing had been banned by the DQIUDK and that they were only allowed for the internal purposes of the religious organisation at the registered legal address of the entity but could not be distributed in public places.

C. Sumgayit incident

On 4 May 2010 the sixth and seventh applicants were bearing witness house-to-house in Sumgayit when a police officer who happened to live in the same apartment block detained them and took them to the police station. They were questioned and the religious literature in their bags was confiscated. While the sixth applicant remained at the police station until she was released after midnight, the police officers took the seventh applicant to her apartment where they carried out a search, confiscating her religious literature. She was then returned to the police station and detained until early in the morning of 5 May 2010. The following day, 6 May 2010, the two applicants returned to the police station as ordered and were taken to the Sumgayit City Court.

The court on the same date and by separate decisions found the sixth and seventh applicants guilty of distributing literature not ap proved for import under Article 300.0.2 of the CAO and fined them AZN 200 (approximately EUR 200 at the time) each.

On 18 May 2010 the two applicants lodged appeals against those decisions. Relying on various Articles 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 had been arrested without legitimate cause. The applicants also asked for recovery of the costs involved.

On 12 June 2010 the Sumgayit Court of Appeal, by separate decisions, quashed the decisions of the first-instance court. Having found the applicants not guilty of commencing administrative offence provided by Article 300.0.2 of the CAO, the court discontinued the proceedings and ordered the confiscated property to be returned to the applicants. The court held that although the applicants had possessed books banned by the DQIUDK, the evidence had not proved that they had been distributing them. However, as the applicants had been causing a public disturbance by walking into people ’ s apartments and breaching the general provisions of legislation regulating religious activities, their request for recovery of the costs involved was dismissed.

COMPLAINTS

The third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh ap plicants complain under Article 5 of the Convention that their arrest and detention in excess of time permitted by the domestic law were without just cause and in breach of their right to liberty.

All the app licants complain under Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention that the unlawful interference of the domestic authorities with their freedom of worship and practice amounted to a violation of their rights to freedom of religion and freedom of expression.

The applicants further complain under Article 14 re ad in conjunction with Articles 9 the Convention that they suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of their Convention rights on the grounds of belonging to a religious minority.

The seventh applicant additionally complains that the search and seizure carried out by the police officers at her home infringed h er rights under Article 8 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Can the sixth and seventh applicants still claim to be victims of a violation of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 34?

2. Were the third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh applicants deprived of their liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the deprivation of liberty fall within paragraphs (a)-(e) of that provision? Were detention records ( İnzibati tutma haqqında protocol ) compiled? If they were, the Government are requested to submit copies, as well as any other documents relating to the applicants ’ detention.

3. Has there been an interference with the seventh applicant ’ s right to respect for her 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?

4. 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 of the Convention?

5. Has there been an interference with the applicants ’ freedom of expression, wit hin 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 of the Convention?

6. Have the applicants suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of their Convention rights on the grounds of belonging to a religious minority, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention? In particular, have the applicants been subjected to different treatment in manifesting their religion? If so, did that difference in treatment pursue a legitimate aim and did it have a reasonable justification?

Appendix