Communicated on 15 March 2016

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 70981/11 ELECTION MONITORING AND DEMOCRACY EDUCATION CENTRE and others against Azerbaijan lodged on 4 November 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The applicants are represented by Mr I. Aliyev, a lawyer practicing in Azerbaijan.

The Election Monitoring and Democracy Education Centre ( SeçkilÉ™rin Monitorinqi vÉ™ Demokratiyanın TÉ™drisi MÉ™rkÉ™zi - “the Centre” ) was a non ‑ governmental organisation (“NGO”) specialising in monitoring of elections established on 1 December 2008. It was founded by Messrs Anar Mammadli, Bashir Suleymanli and Suliddin Asgarov. Mr Anar Mammadli was the Centre ’ s chairman.

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

On 26 January 2009 the applicants lodged a request with the Ministry of Justice (“the Ministry”) for the Centre ’ s state registration as a legal entity, as required by the domestic law, together with the relevant documents. While the domestic law did not require NGOs to be officially registered, effective operation of an NGO, including an ability to receive and register grants, open bank accounts and so on, was contingent on obtaining the status of a legal entity.

By a letter of 12 March 2009, the Ministry informed the applicants that the time-limits for examination of their request had been extended for a period of thirty days and that they would be informed of the result of the examination.

By a letter of 29 April 2009 the Ministry returned the registration documents without taking a decision on state registration. It noted that the applicants had failed to submit a copy of the decision on the establishment of the Centre and the approval of its charter. The Ministry further noted that the name of the Law on Non-Governmental Organisations (Public Associations and Funds) was not correctly written in section 1.4 of the Centre ’ s charter.

On 13 May 2009 the applicants lodged an action with the Yasamal District Court, complaining about the violation of their right to freedom of association and asking the court to order the Ministry to carry out the Centre ’ s state registration. They claimed that the grounds to which the Ministry had referred for return of the registration documents could not constitute a basis under the domestic law for refusal to carry out state registration of an NGO. They also claimed that the Ministry had extended the time-limits for examination of their request without any reason and had failed to reply to their request within the time-limits provided for by the domestic law.

In the meantime, the applicants also re-submitted the state registration request, carrying out the required modifications in the documents.

On 18 August 2009 the Ministry returned the registration documents again finding other deficiencies in the documents submitted to it. The Ministry held that it did not appear from the documents submitted whether the Centre had been established on a permanent basis or for achieving particular objectives.

On 2 September 2009 the Yasamal District Court dismissed the applicants ’ claim, finding nothing unlawful in the actions of the Ministry.

On 2 October 2009 the applicants appealed against this judgment, reiterating their previous complaints.

On 17 December 2009 the Baku C ourt of Appeal upheld the first ‑ instance court ’ s judgment.

On 13 August 2010 the Supreme Court quashed the lower courts ’ judgments and remitted the case to the appellate court for a new examination. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts had failed to examine whether the Ministry ’ s actions had violated the applicants ’ right protected under Article 11 of the Convention.

On 3 December 2010 the Baku Court of Appeal delivered a new judgment on the merits, dismissing again the applicants ’ appeal. It held that the applicants had failed to provide the Ministry with all the required documents for the Centre ’ s state registration and that there had been no violation of the applicants ’ right under Article 11 of the Convention.

On 20 April 2011 the Supreme Court upheld the Baku Court of Appeal ’ s judgment of 3 December 2010.

The applicants were provided with a copy of the Supreme Court ’ s decision on 6 May 2011.

On 8 August 2014 the applicants ’ representative before the Court, Mr I. Aliyev, was arrested on charges of tax evasion, abuse of power and illegal entrepreneurship. On 8 and 9 August 2014 the prosecuting authorities conducted a search of Mr Aliyev ’ s home and office. During the search, a large number of documents , including all the case files relating to the applications before the Court that were in Mr I. Aliyev ’ s possession as a representative, were seized by the domestic authorities.

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.

On 25 October 2014 a part of the seized documents was returned to Javad Javadov , Mr. I. Aliyev ’ s counsel.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain under Article 11 of the Convention that the failure by the Ministry of Justice to register the Centre amounted to a violation of their right to freedom of association.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been an interference with the applicants ’ freedom of association, in particular, their right to form an association, within the meaning of Article 11 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the actions of the Ministry of Justice and the reasons given by it for returning the registration documents comply with the requirements of the domestic law? If so, was the interference necessary in terms of Article 11 § 2?

2 . In view of the seizure of the case files from Mr I. Aliyev ’ s home and office on 8 and 9 August 2014, has there been any hindrance by the State in the present case with the effective exercise of the applicants ’ right of application, ensured by Article 34 of the Convention?

3. The parties are requested to provide the Court with all the documents relating to the Election Monitoring and Democracy Education Centre ’ s establishment and requests for state registration, as well as the relevant domestic court proceedings.