Communicated on 11 July 2017

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 18068/08 Elmar PASHAYEV and others against Azerbaijan lodged on 14 March 2008

STATEMENT OF FACTS

A list of the applicants 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.

Guba events

On 9 June 2007 the applicants arrived at a holiday spot in Guba District and settled in their friend ’ s house, where they were planning to stay for two days. On the same day, while they were relaxing with their families, several police officers approached them and asked them for their identity documents. After checking the documents the officer in charge told them that they had violated the rules concerning temporary residence registration and had to immediately leave the district. They explained that they had only come for a weekend break but the police warned them that they had violated the requirements of Article 329 of the Code of Administrative Offences. As a result, they and their family members brought an end to their visit and left the Guba District.

On 2 July 2007 the applicants lodged a complaint with the Guba District Police Department , the Prosecutor General ’ s Office, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Ombudsman . They alleged that the only reason the police had wanted to expel them from the Guba District had been because they had been dressed in traditional Islamic clothes and had long beards.

By a letter of 13 July 2007 the Guba District Police Department informed the applicants that on 9 June 2007 the police inspector responsible for the area where the applicants had been staying had checked their identity documents and informed them that they had to register at the District Police Department if they planned on staying for a long period. However, shortly afterwards they had left their place of temporary stay, even though they had not been degraded or otherwise treated badly by the officer.

On 30 July 2007 the applicants received a letter from the Ombudsman providing the same information.

On 31 August and 27 September 2007 they received letters from the Ministry of Internal Affairs reiterating the content of the letter provided by the Guba District Police Department.

In the meantime, relying on the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure concerning applications against the actions of the authorities against an individual ’ s rights and freedoms, on 6 July 2007 the applicants lodged a complaint with the Guba District Court. They reiterated their previous complaints and asked the court to acknowledge that they had faced restrictions on their movement and discrimination for their religious beliefs and to order the police to pay them 5000 manats (AZN – approximately 5000 euros (EUR) each in damages.

On 27 August and 24 October 2007 they lodged two complaints with the Guba District Court, copies of which were also sent to the Sumgayit Appeal Court and Supreme Court. They complained that because their complaint of July 2007 had not been accepted by the first-instance court, it had been later resubmitted by post. However, the first-instance court had not provided them with any reply regarding the outcome of the proceedings to date.

On 29 February 2008, in the absence of any reply from the Guba District Court, they lodged a complaint with the Sumgayit Appeal Court and Supreme Court, complaining that no action had been taken by the first ‑ instance court to date. They relied on a post office notification bearing a stamp dated 9 July 2007.

On 17 March 2008 they were informed by the Guba District Court that it had not received any complaints from them and that examination of their complaint would only be possible once they had applied to the court.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention that the domestic authorities unlawfully restricted their right to freedom of movement within the State.

The applicants also complain under Articles 9 and 14 of the Convention that the restriction of their right to freedom of movement was caused solely because they were dressed in traditional Islamic clothes and had long beards, and that that amounts to a violation of their right to manifest their religion and discrimination on the grounds of religion.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been a restriction on the applicants ’ right to liberty of movement, guaranteed by Article 2 § 1 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention?

2. 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?

3. Have the applicants suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of their Convention rights on the grounds of their religion, contrary to Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 9 of the Convention, and with Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention?

Appendix