Communicated on 3 March 2016

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 70106/13 Åžahin NOVRUZLU against Azerbaijan lodged on 17 October 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Shahin Novruzlu , is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1995 and lives in Baku. He is represented before the Court by Mr N. Karimli , a lawyer practising in Azerbaijan.

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

A. Institution of criminal proceedings against the applicant and his remand in custody

The applicant was a student at the Odlar Yurdu University at the time of the events. He was also a member of NIDA civic movement (“NIDA”), a non-governmental organisation established in 2011. The applicant and other members of NIDA actively participated in the demonstrations held in Baku in January and February 2013 to protest against death of soldiers in the Azerbaijani Army.

On 7 March 2013 the applicant was arrested and taken to the Ministry of National Security. On the same day a search was carried out in the applicant ’ s flat where the police found 252 grams of narcotic substances and three Molotov cocktails.

On 7 March 2013 he was questioned in the presence of a State appointed lawyer, but in the absence of his legal representative.

On 9 March 2013 the applicant was charged with the criminal offences under Articles 228.3 ( illegal possession of weapons, committed by an organised group) and 234.1 (illegal possession of a quantity of narcotic substances exceeding that necessary for personal use without intent to sell ) of the Criminal Code. T he specific acts attributed to him were that he had illegally obtained narcotic substances and that, by creating an organised criminal group with another member of NIDA (B.G.), he had illegally obtained three Molotov cocktails and then kept them in his place of residence at the instruction of other members of NIDA.

On the same day the Nasimi District Court ordered the applicant ’ s pre ‑ trial detention for a period of three months. The court justified the applicant ’ s detention pending trial by the gravity of the charges and the likelihood that if released he might abscond from and obstruct the investigation.

The applicant did not appeal against the Nasimi District Court ’ s decision of 9 March 2013.

B. Extension of the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention

On 30 May 2013 the Nasimi District Court extended the applicant ’ s detention pending trial by three months, until 7 September 2013. The court substantiated the necessity of the extension of the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention by the complexity of the case, the possibility of his absconding from the investigation and the necessity of additional time to carry out further investigative actions.

On 3 June 2013 the applicant appealed against this decision, claiming that the first-instance court had failed to justify his continued detention.

On 6 June 2013 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the extension of the applicant ’ s detention pending trial had been justified.

On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a request with the court asking to be put under house arrest in place of pre-trial detention. He claimed, in particular, that there was no risk of his absconding from or obstructing the investigation and that the courts had failed to take into consideration his personal situation.

On 4 July 2013 the Nasimi District Court dismissed the request, finding that there was no need to change the preventive measure of remand in custody.

On 11 July 2013 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court ’ s decision.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 5 of the Convention that the domestic courts failed to justify his detention pending trial and that there were no relevant and sufficient reasons for his continued detention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the domestic courts give sufficient and relevant reasons for the applicant ’ s detention for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? Did they consider alternative measures to his continued detention?

2. Were the restrictions imposed by the State in the present case, purportedly pursuant to Article 5 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by that provision, contrary to Article 18 of the Convention?

3. The Government are requested to submit copies of all documents relating to the proceedings concerning the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention, including all documents and decisions relating to extensions (if any) of the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention which have taken place after the lodging of the present application.