Communicated on 20 November 2015

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 76329/13 Ilkin RUSTAMZADE against Azerbaijan lodged on 9 September 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Ilkin Rustamzade , is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1992 and lives in Baku. He is represented before the Court by Mr N. Karimli , a lawyer practising in Azerbaijan.

The circumstances of the cases

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

The applicant is one of the founders of Azad Genclik public union and at the material time was a member of the opposition group National Council ( Milli Åžura ). He also was one of the organisers of protests against death of soldiers in the army, held on 12 and 26 January 2013 and 10 February 2013 in Baku. For that activity the applicant was punished under the Code of Administrative Offences (the CAO).

The applicant decided to attend a demonstration to commemorate the victims of the terrorist act which had been committed in 2009 at the Azerbaijan State Oil Academy (the ADNA). The demonstration was held on 30 April 2013 in front of the ADNA, without authorisation. It was held in a peaceful manner. The information about the assembly was disseminated on Internet through social networks.

It appears that the applicant left the place of the demonstration immediately after he had arrived there. According to the applicant, he was requested to do so by police officers (who apparently were dispersing the demonstration).

At an unspecified time on the same date the applicant was arrested by plain-clothed persons and taken to police station no. 22.

According to the applicant, he was not given an opportunity to contact his relatives and was not promptly informed about the reasons for his arrest. The applicant ’ s rights were not properly explained to him and he was not given access to a lawyer.

On the day of the applicant ’ s arrest, an “administrative-offence report” ( inzibati xəta haqqında protokol ) was drawn up in his respect. The report stated that the applicant had committed an administrative offence under Article 298.2 (violation of rules on holding public gatherings) of the CAO .

The applicant was brought before the Nasimi District Court on the day of his arrest. By a decision of 30 April 2013 the court found that the applicant had participated in an unlawful demonstration and refused to stop his illegal actions. The court convicted the applicant under Article 298.2 of the CAO, and sentenced him to fifteen days ’ “administrative” detention.

In the absence of an official decision of the court to examine the case in a closed hearing, the public was not allowed to attend the hearing. The applicant was not given legal assistance.

The court relied heavily on the administrative-offence report issued in respect of the applicant. The only witness questioned during the court hearing was a police officer.

The applicant lodged an appeal before the Baku Court of Appeal, arguing that his conviction violated his right to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression. The applicant also complained that his arrest had been unlawful and that the hearing before the first-instance court had not been fair. The applicant asked the Baku Court of Appeal to quash the first-instance court ’ s decision.

On 16 May 2013 the Baku Court of Appeal rejected the applicant ’ s appeal and upheld the decision of the first-instance court.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains under Article 5 of the Convention that his arrest and detention were unlawful and that during his arrest a number of domestic procedural rules were violated .

2. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that he did not have a fair hearing in the administrative offence proceedings, and that his right to a public hearing was violated.

3. The applicant complains that he was arrested and convicted for participating in a peaceful assembly, in breach of Article 11 of the Convention. The applicant also relies on Article 10 in this respect.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant ’ s “administrative” arrest in compliance with domestic procedural rules?

2. Was Article 6 of the Convention under its criminal head applicable to the proceedings in the present case? If so, did the applicant have a fair and public hearing in determining the charge against him, in accordance with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention? In particular, (i) was the principle of equality of arms respected, (ii) was the applicant afforded adequate and sufficient time and facilities to prepare his defence, (iii) was he able to defend himself through legal assistance of his own choosing or was he afforded effective legal assistance, and (iv) was his right to a reasoned judgment respected?

3. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s 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?

4. The parties are requested to submit copies of all documents relating to the administrative proceedings, including the administrative-offence report, any statements made by the applicant before being brought to court, the transcripts of the hearings and the applicant ’ s appeals.

5. The parties are also requested to submit copies of all documents relating to the organisation and holding of the demonstration of 30 April 2013, in particular, the notices (if any) submitted by the organisers of the public assembly to the relevant local executive authorities, and the official responses the organisers received from the relevant local executive authorities.