Communicated on 16 March 2016

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 7268/10 Akif HASANOV against Azerbaijan lodged on 28 January 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Akif Hasanov , is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1955 and lives in Baku. He is represented before the Court by Mr I. Aliyev and Ms N. Aliyeva , lawyers practising in Azerbaijan.

The circumstances of the case

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

On an unspecified date in November 2007 the police indicted the applicant before the Khatai District Court on charges of minor hooliganism for insulting N.H. and E.N. in the street.

On 20 November 2007, the Khatai District Court found the applicant guilty under Article 296 of the Code of Administrative Offences and sentenced him to five days ’ administrative detention. In its judgment the District Court referred to the testimony at the court hearing of one of the victims (N.H.), who had stated that the applicant had repeatedly insulted him and his family and that he had last insulted him on 8 November 2007. During the hearing the applicant stated that he had never insulted the above ‑ mentioned persons and that N.H. had complained about him because of a recent disagreement between them . The court did not address the applicant ’ s arguments.

The judgment was immediately enforced in accordance with the domestic law and the applicant was accordingly detained.

On 26 November 2007, after his release, the applicant appealed against the judgment, arguing that at the time of the alleged offence he had been in hospital, that the first-instance court had relied only on the statement of one of the victims, and that it had not taken into account his disability, which excluded the possibility of his imprisonment.

On 12 December 2007 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal. It did not address the applicant ’ s specific arguments, nor had it informed the applicant in advance of the time and place of the hearing .

According to the applicant, o nly after repeated requests had this judgment been served on him on 24 August 2009.

On 8 August 2014 the applicant ’ s lawyer, Mr I. Aliyev, was arrested on charges of tax evasion, illegal entrepreneurship and abuse of authority. During a search of his office, a number of documents were seized by the State authorities, including all the case files relating to applications before the Court that were in the possession of Mr I. Aliyev, as a representative . On 25 October 2014 some of the seized documents were returned to Javad Javadov , Mr. I. Aliyev ’ s counsel.

By a fax dated 28 August 2014, Mr I. Aliyev informed the Court of the seizure of the case files claiming a breach of Article 34 of the Convention in respect of all the applications affected. In his letters sent to the Court in September 2014 Mr I. Aliyev reiterated the complaint concerning the seizure of the case files.

COMPLAINTS

Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention, the applicant complains that his right to a fair and public hearing was violated, in particular that the Court of Appeal did not inform him of the time and place of the hearing, and that the court judgments were not adequately reasoned .

The applicant also complains under Article 7 § 1 of the Convention that he was sentenced to a heavier penalty than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed, since under the domestic law second-degree disabled persons could not be sentenced to administrative detention.

Lastly, the applicant complains that by the seizure of his case file from Mr I. Aliyev ’ s office in August 2014, the State had hindered the effective exercise of his right of application under Article 34 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were the judgments of the domestic courts adequately reasoned?

2. Was the applicant ’ s absence from the hearing held before the Supreme Court in compliance with the requirements under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention?

3. Was a heavier penalty imposed on the applicant than the one which was applicable at the time of the commission of the offence in the present case, in breach of Article 7 of the Convention?

4. In view of the seizure of the applicant ’ s case file from Mr I. Aliyev ’ s office on 8 and 9 August 2014, has the State in the present case hindered the effective exercise of the applicant ’ s right of application under Article 34 of the Convention?