Communicated on 11 July 2017

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 52682/07 RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY OF JEHOVAH ’ S WITNESSES and HANSEN against Azerbaijan lodged on 16 November 2007

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The first applicant is a local religious community of Jehovah ’ s Witnesses with registered seat in Baku and the second applicant, Mr Oddvar Hansen, is a Norwegian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Fervick . They are represented before the Court by Mr R. Cook, lawyer practising in London.

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

On 24 December 2006 approximately 200 Jehovah ’ s Witnesses met for worship in a religious assembly at their meeting hall, situated on the second floor of a private building.

The building was owned by the second applicant, who had rented it out to the first applicant under a lease (without payment) for the purposes of holding religious meetings.

According to the applicants, a “raid” on religious meeting took place on 24 December 2006, involving more than forty officials. They included officers from the Khatai District Police Department, from police station n o. 34, a representative of the State Committee for Work with Religious Associations, officials from the Khatai District Prosecutor ’ s Office and the Ministry of National Security, members of the media with cameras for filming and other unknown individuals.

On 7 February 2007 the applicants lodged a complaint (in court supervisory proceedings) with the Khatai District Court against the actions of a Khatai District Police Department investigator in carrying out the search. They requested that the court find that the search was unlawful and order the return of seized computer equipment, religious literature and other property.

On 7 May 2007 the Khatai District Court granted the complaint in part and held that the search of the house and seizure of private property had been unlawful since they had been carried out without a court order, which was contrary to the requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court, however, did not order the immediate return of the seized property, holding that all the computer equipment and literature registered in the report had already been returned to the religious community.

On 10 May 2007 the Khatai District Prosecutor lodged an appeal against the decision of 7 May 2007, requesting that the appellate court quash the part of the decision that was in the applicants ’ favour . He submitted that the authorities had not broken into the house as the doors had been open and the owner had permitted entry.

On 21 May 2007 the Baku Court of Appeal examined the case in camera and without the applicants, but in the presence of the prosecutor and a representative of the police. It stated that the applicants had been notified of the hearing but had failed to appear and inform the court of the reasons for their absence. The court allowed the prosecutor ’ s appeal and stated that the police search and seizure had been lawful. It found that the measures had been carried out in accordance with Article 177.6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides that a court order is not required when the owner of the premises in question permits entry. The decision was final.

While the records of the hearing state that a notification was sent to the applicants but that they did not appear, the applicants allege that they received neither the notification nor a copy of the prosecutor ’ s appeal. According to the applicants, their lawyer, who happened to be at the Baku Court of Appeal in conversation with a police representative, did not learn until 22 May 2007 that the first-instance decision had been appealed against and subsequently quashed.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that they were deprived of their right to participate at the proceedings held on 21 May 2007 at the Baku Court of Appeal, which had infringed their right to a fair trial.

The applicants complain under Article 9 of the Convention of unlawful interference by the domestic authorities with their freedom of worship and practice, which amounted to a violation of their rights to freedom of religion.

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

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of equality of arms respected to ensure their participation at the hearing held by the Baku Court of Appeal on 21 May 2007?

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?