Communicated on 7 June 2016

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 59202/12 Bahruz HASANOV against Azerbaijan lodged on 27 August 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Bahruz Hasanov , is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1981 and lives in Baku. He is represented before the Court by Mr R. Mustafazade and Mr A. Mustafayev, lawyers practising in Azerbaijan.

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

The applicant worked as a bodyguard of the chairman of the Popular Front Party of Azerbaijan (the “PFPA”).

At around 2 p.m. on 11 July 2012, when the applicant was on his way home, a person approached him on the street accusing him of having insulted his family. Following a conversation between the two of them, about fifteen plain-clothes police officers approached him from the entrance lobby of one the nearby buildings. They asked him to go with them to a police station to “settle the matter” with the above-mentioned person. The applicant did not oppose the police officers ’ demand but asked the reason why he was being taken to a police station. He was taken to the S urakhani District Police Office.

The applicant was questioned at the police station in the absence of a lawyer. Whilst in police custody, his request to be provided with a lawyer of his own choosing was not granted.

On the same day the police issued a record of an administrative offence. It appears from the record that the applicant had committed an administrative offence under Article 310 (failure to comply with a lawful order of a police officer) of the Code of Administrative Offences (“the CAO”).

On the same day the applicant was taken to the Surakhani District Court and appeared before a judge. According to the applicant, although there had been no official decision on holding a closed hearing, the public ‒ and in particular his relatives and colleagues from the PFPA who were waiting outside the court building ‒ were not allowed to attend the hearing.

The applicant was provided with a State-appointed lawyer in the proceedings before the court. According to the applicant, the judge hearing his case at the Surakhani District Court disregarded his request to be provided with a lawyer of his own choosing and the private lawyer hired by his relatives to represent him was not allowed to attend the hearing. The court heard the applicant and two of the police officers who had participated in his arrest as well as the person who had had the verbal altercation with the applicant prior to his arrest. The applicant stated before the Surakhani District Court that he had not committed any administrative offence and that his arrest had been politically motivated.

The Surakhani District Court found the applicant guilty under Article 310 of the CAO (failure to comply with a lawful order of a police officer) and sentenced him to ten days ’ administrative detention.

The applicant ’ s State-appointed lawyer filed an appeal against the decision of the Surakhani District Court. The applicant claimed before the Baku Court of Appeal that neither he nor the private lawyer who had been engaged to represent him before the Baku Court of Appeal had been given access to a copy of the Surakhani District Court ’ s decision in order for them to prepare an appeal.

On 16 July 2012 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal and upheld the decision of the Surakhani District Court.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that his arrest and administrative detention were arbitrary and were not based on any factual basis for a suspicion of his having committed an offence .

Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (c) of the Convention the applicant complains that: (1) he did not have a public hearing; (2) he was not afforded adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence; and (3) he was denied access to effective legal assistance from a lawyer of his own choosing and the State-appointed lawyer ’ s legal assistance was not effective.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?

2. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, has there been a public hearing in the present case, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? If not, was the exclusion of the public in the present case “strictly necessary”, within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

3. Was the applicant afforded adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence , as required by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) of the Convention?

4. Was the applicant able to defend himself through legal assistance of his own choosing, as required by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention? Was the free legal assistance afforded to the applicant effective within the meaning of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention?

5. The parties are requested to submit copies of all documents relating to the administrative proceedings, including the report on an administrative offence, any statement made by the applicant before being brought to the court, the transcripts of the hearings, and the applicant ’ s appeal to the Baku Court of Appeal.