Communicated on 6 July 2017

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 561/12 Rashad NIFTALIYEV and others against Azerbaijan lodged on 2 January 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

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

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

On 12 June 2011 the applicants were arrested during a police raid on a Jehovah ’ s Witnesses religious meeting, which took place in Ganja in the private home of the second applicant. They were taken to the Nizami District Police Department, were released from arrest several hours later and were ordered to return to the police station the next day.

On 13 June 2011 the applicants returned to the police station and were taken to the Nizami District Court.

On the same date, the Nizami District Court found them guilty in separate decisions of violating the legislation on organising and holding religious meetings under Articles 299.0.2 of the Code of Administrative Offences. It fined the first applicant 1,500 Azerbaijani manats ( AZN – approximately 1300 euros (EUR) at the time). The second and third applicants were fined AZN 500 ( approximately EUR 400 euros at the time) each while t he forth applicant ’ s sentence was commuted to an administrative warning on account of his having a disability.

On unspecified dates the applicants lodged appeals against those decisions. Relying on various Articles of the Convention, the applicants argued that they had not been engaged in unlawful activities and had been arrested without legitimate cause.

On 23 July 2011 the Ganja Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals in separate decisions and upheld the decisions of the first-instance court. The appellate court stat ed that the applicants had been holding an unauthorised religious meeting outside the religious organisation ’ s place of activity, which was set in Baku, which was contrary to the requirements of the domestic legislation on religious entities. It found that it was within the State ’ s margin of appreciation to limit such activities, both under Article 9 § 2 of the Convention and the Constitution.

COMPLAINTS

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

The applicants further complain under Article 9 read in conjunction with Article 11 of the Convention that the 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 also complain under Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 9 of the Convention, that they were discriminated against on the grounds of their religious belief.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been an interference with the second applicant ’ s right to respect for her private 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 grounds of being a religious minority, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention? In particular, have the applicants been subjected to a difference in treatment owing to restrictions on 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