Communicated on 6 July 2017

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 71032/12 Sadullah Eren GENC and others against Azerbaijan lodged on 13 October 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants, listed in the appendix, are a group of Turkish citizens of Islamic faith .

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

On 28 April 2012 the applicants were arrested during a police raid on a religious meeting which took place in Ganja in the private home of a local friend and were taken to the Nizami District Police Department. After approximately twenty hours at the police station, the applicants were taken next day to the Nizami District Court. They were released in the courtroom and ordered to attend a hearing on 30 April 2012.

The applicants did not specify what happened during the following days. According to the case file, the Nizami District Court on 7 June 2012 delivered separate decisions finding the applicants guilty of violating the legislation on freedom of religion relating to foreigners under Article 300.0.4 of the Code of Administrative Offences. It fined each of them 2, 000 Azerbaijani manats ( AZN – approximately 1,800 euros (EUR) at the time) and ordered their deportation . With reference to the relevant administrative arrest records ( inzibati tutma haqqında protokol ), the first-instance court stated that the applicants had been detained at the police station for two hours and ten minutes and then released, therefore their complaints of being held there for a long time were unsubstantiated.

On unspecified dates the applicants lodged appeals against those decisions. Relying on Articles 5, 6 and 9 of the Convention, they argued that they had not been engaged in unlawful activities and had been arrested and detained for about twenty hours without legitimate cause. They further argued that they had not been provided with the assistance of an interpreter or lawyer during their arrest and subsequent questioning.

On 29 June 2010 the Ganja Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals in separate decisions, but changed the first-instance rulings in part by replacing deportation with an administrative warning. The appellate court stat ed that contrary to the arguments of the applicants that they had only gathered to pray, the fact that there had been around thirty to thirty-five people at the apartment during the police raid, as confirmed by the statements of the applicants and other witnesses during the proceedings, confirmed that the purpose of the gathering had been an unauthorised religious meeting.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain under Article 5 of the Convention that their arrest and twenty-hour detention at the police station were without just cause and were carried out in breach of their right to liberty.

The applicants complain under Article 6 of the Convention that their rights to be assisted by an interpreter and represented by a lawyer were violated.

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

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Were the applicants deprived of their liberty on 28 April 2012 in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the deprivation of liberty fall within paragraphs (a)-(e) of that provision? Was a detention record ( İnzibati tutma haqqında protocol ) ever compiled? If it was, the Government are requested to submit copies of such records in respect of each applicant, as well as any other documents relating to the applicants ’ detention.

2. Did the applicants have a fair trial in the proceedings against them, as required by Article 6 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicants ’ right to be assisted by an interpreter and defended by a lawyer restricted during the questioning at the police station?

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 of the Convention?

Appendix