Communicated on 17 December 2015

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 71750/13 Dayanat BABAYEV and others against Azerbaijan lodged on 4 September 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicants are Azerbaijani nationals. They are represented before the Court by Mr R. Mustafazade and Mr A. Mustafayev, lawyers practising in Azerbaijan. A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.

The circumstances of the cases

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

On 4 and 5 March 2012 the mass media disseminated information that two persons (M.M. and B.H.), allegedly arrested on political motives, had been subjected to ill-treatment in custody. The applicants, together with a number of other persons, gathered at around 3 p.m. to 4 p.m. on 6 March 2012 near the metro station Elmlər Akademiyası in Baku to protest against that alleged ill-treatment, and attempted to march towards the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The protest was spontaneous and peaceful. However, the attempt to stage a march was stopped by police officers who began to forcibly disperse the protest. The police officers were mainly plain-clothed.

The police arrested seventeen protesters, including the applicants, and took them to the Yasamal District Police Office. At the police office “administrative-offence reports” ( inzibati xəta haqqında protokol ) were drawn up in respect of the applicants.

On the day of his arrest, the first applicant was brought before the Yasamal District Court, which found that he had breached public order by making noise and by holding an unauthorised protest. The court convicted the applicant under Article 296 (minor hooliganism) of the CAO and sentenced him to a fine in sum of 50 Azerbaijani manats (AZN).

The administrative-offence protocols in respect of the second and third applicants stated that they had committed an administrative offence under Article 298 (violation of rules on holding public gatherings) of the Code of Administrative Offences (the CAO). The police ordered each applicant to pay a fine in sum of AZN 10. After payment of the fine both applicants were released.

On 19 March 2012 the applicants and one other protester lodged an action with the Baku Administrative-Economic Court no. 1 against the Yasamal District Police Office, arguing that the police officers ’ interference with the protest had been unlawful and inadequate. The applicants also sought compensation for non-pecuniary damage.

In support of their claim that the dispersal of the protest had been violent, the applicants submitted to the court photographs and medical records confirming various protesters ’ bodily and facial injuries.

On 27 July 2012 the Baku Administrative-Economic Court no. 1 dismissed the applicants ’ complaint.

The applicants appealed. They argued before the Baku Court of Appeal that the dispersal of the protest was in violation of their freedom of assembly and freedom of expression, and that that the hearing before the first-instance court had not been fair.

On 13 November 2012 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants ’ appeal and upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.

By a decision of 13 March 2013 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicants complain under Article 6 of the Convention that they did not have a fair hearing in the proceedings concerning the dispersal of the protest of 6 March 2012.

2. The applicants complain that the dispersal of the protest was in breach of Article 11 of the Convention. The applicants also rely on Article 10 in this respect.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the proceedings in the present case?

2. Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the right of the applicants to a reasoned judgment respected?

3. H as there been an interference with the applicants ’ freedom of peaceful assembly, within the meaning of Article 11 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary, in terms of Article 11 § 2? Was the interference proportionate?

4. The parties are requested to submit copies of all documents relating to the proceedings before the domestic courts, including the applicants ’ complaints, appeals and requests, and the transcripts of the hearings.