Communicated on 18 May 2017

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 29578/11 Nina Petrovna GRIDNEVA against Azerbaijan lodged on 5 May 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Nina Petrovna Gridneva , is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1947 and lives in Baku. She is represented before the Court by Mr R. Cook, Mr A. Carbonneau and Mr J. Wise, lawyers practising in London, Montreal and Tbilisi respectively.

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

On 24 September 2010, while the applicant was talking to a woman and giving her pieces of religious literature published by Jehovah ’ s Witnesses, she was stopped by several police officers and taken to the Sabail District Police Department. After being interrogated there for eleven hours, she was charged under Article 300.0.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences (hereinafter referred to as “the CAO”) with selling religious literature from a place that was not an approved point of sale and taken to Sabail District Court. However, because the applicant did not have a lawyer, the court would not proceed with the case and she was taken back to the police station, where she handed over her passport.

On 27 September 2010 the applicant returned to the police station and explained to the police officer that there was no basis for proceedings in court because she had merely been exercising her right to express her religious beliefs. The police officer informed her that the book she had been distributing was banned by the State Committee for Work with Religious Associations ( Dini Qurumlarla İş Üzrə Dövlət Komitəsi – hereinafter referred to as “the DQIUDK”) but agreed to adjourn the matter for one week so that the applicant could secure legal representation.

On 5 October 2010 the police had reclassified the charge under Article 300.0.2 of the CAO, which forbids the distribution of religious literature not approved for import by the DQIUDK.

On 6 October 2010 the applicant returned to Sabail District Court but was informed that the case file would be returned to the police for further investigation because there were problems with the evidence. The judge refused to accept the applicant ’ s plea to terminate the proceedings because the case had not been admitted and there were therefore no proceedings to terminate.

On 19 October 2010 the applicant ’ s case was returned to Sabail District Court, which found her guilty of distributing literature not approved for import under Article 300.0.2 of the Code for Administrative Offences and fined her 200 manats (AZN – approximately 200 euros (EUR) at the time). The court relied on a letter from the DQIUDK stat ing that the book which the applicant had been distributing had not been approved for import.

On 29 October 2010 the applicant lodged an appeal against that decision. Relying on Articles 5, 6, 9, 10, 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant argued that she had not been engaged in unlawful activities and arrested without legitimate cause.

On 18 November 2010 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal and upheld the decision of the first-instance court. In its reasoning, the appeal court also relied on the letter from the DQIUDK stat ing that the book which the applicant had been distributing had not been approved for import. Moreover, under the domestic legislation, even religious literature approved for import can be used only for the internal purposes of the religious organisation at the registered judicial address of the entity and not for distribution at public places. The appeal court further held that, contrary to the applicant ’ s allegations, she was being punished for an administrative offence ‒ namely violating the provisions of the relevant legislation ‒ and not for being a member of some religious community and holding religious beliefs. In any case, the applicant should have obtained prior permission to distribute such religious literature and should have carried this out only at the registered premises of the religious organisation , but she had done neither of these things.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 5 of the Convention that her arrest and 11 hours of detention at the police station were without just cause and in breach of her right to liberty.

The applicant complains under Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention that the unlawful interference of the domestic authorities with her freedom of worship and practice amounted to a violation of her rights to freedom of religion and to freedom of expression .

The applicant further complains under Article 14 read in conjunction with Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention that she suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of her Convention rights on the grounds of belonging to a religious minority .

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant deprived of her liberty on 24 September 2010 in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the deprivation of liberty fall within paragraphs (a)-(e) of this provision? Was a detention record ( İnzibati tutma haqqında protocol ) ever compiled? If it was, the Government are requested to submit a copy of it, as well as any other documents relating to the applicant ’ s detention.

2. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s 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?

3. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and n ecessary in terms of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention?

4. Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of her 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, has the applicant been subjected to different treatment in manifesting her religion? If so, did that difference in treatment pursue a legitimate aim; and did it have a reasonable justification?