Communicated on 3 December 2014

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 47145/14 Anar Asaf Oglu MAMMADLI against Azerbaijan lodged on 17 June 2014

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Anar Mammadli , is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1978 and lives in Baku. He is represented before the Court by Mr R. Hajili , 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 is a well-known civil society activist. He is the chairman of the Election Monitoring and Democracy Studies Centre (“the Centre”), a non-governmental organisation specialised in monitoring of elections.

The Centre conducted monitoring of the last presidential elections which were held on 9 October 2013. The final report of the Centre concerning the results of the elections, issued on 21 October 2013, concluded that the presidential elections had not complied with the democratic standards.

On an unspecified date in October 2013, criminal proceedings were instituted against various persons involved in the Centre ’ s election monitoring activities.

On 31 October 2013 a search was conducted at the Centre ’ s office, as a result of which all the documents and electronic data storage devices were taken.

On 16 December 2013 the applicant was charged under Articles 192.2.2 (illegal entrepreneurship), 213.1 (large-scale tax evasion) and 308.2 (abuse of power) of the Criminal Code.

On the same day the prosecutor lodged a request with the court asking for the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody. The prosecutor justified his request by the gravity of the charges against the applicant, the fact that he did not live in the place where he was officially registered as a resident and that there was a risk of his absconding from the investigation and obstructing the investigation ’ s functioning by influencing other participants in the criminal proceedings. In particular, the prosecutor submitted that the facts that the applicant had studied abroad, that he had frequently travelled to foreign countries and that he was in constant contact with the people living abroad constituted a ground for the risk of absconding from the investigation.

O n 16 December 2013 the Nasimi District Court, relying on the official charges brought against the applicant and the prosecutor ’ s request, ordered the applicant ’ s detention for a period of three months. The court justified the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody by the gravity of the charges and the likelihood that if released the applicant might abscond from and obstruct the investigation.

On 18 December 2013 the applicant appealed against this decision, claiming that his detention was unlawful. He submitted, in particular, that there was no reasonable suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence and that there was no justification for the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody. He noted in this respect that he had always complied with the investigation ’ s requests and that the court had failed to justify his detention on remand.

On 23 December 2013 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal, finding that the first-instance court ’ s decision was lawful.

B. The applicant ’ s request for release on bail or replacement of his pre-trial detention by house arrest

On 20 December 2013 the applicant lodged a request with the Nasimi District Court asking the court to release him on bail or to place him under house arrest in lieu of being remanded in custody. He argued in this connection that there was no reason justifying his continued detention.

On 25 December 2013 the Nasimi District Court dismissed the request, finding that there was no need to change the preventive measure of remand in custody.

On 30 December 2013 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court ’ s decision.

C. Extension o f the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention and further developments

Following a request from the Prosecutor General ’ s Office for an extension of the period of the applicant ’ s detention on remand, o n 6 March 2014 the Nasimi District Court extended the applicant ’ s remand in custody by three months, until 16 June 2014. The judge substantiated the necessity of this extension on the grounds of the complexity of the case and the fact that a number of investigative steps needed to be carried out and thus more time was needed to complete the investigation.

On 7 March 2014 the applicant appealed against this decision, claiming that the court had failed to justify the extension of his pre-trial detention.

On 14 March 2014 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the first-instance court ’ s decision.

On 31 March 2014 the applicant again lodged a request with the Nasimi District Court asking the court to release him on bail or to place him under house arrest in lieu of being remanded in custody. He submitted, in particular, that there was no risk of his absconding from or obstructing the investigation .

On 1 April 2014 the Nasimi District Court dismissed the request.

On 7 April 2014 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the Nasimi District Court ’ s decision of 1 April 2014.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that his arrest and detention were unlawful because there was no reasonable suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence.

The applicant complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the domestic courts failed to justify the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody in his respect and that there were no relevant and sufficient reasons for extension of his pre-trial detention. He further complains that the domestic courts rejected his requests for provisional release on bail or his placement under house arrest in lieu of being remanded in custody without any explanation.

[A1] The applicant complains under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that the domestic courts did not address his specific arguments in support of his release.

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 detention compatible with Article 5 § 1 (c) in terms of being justified and based on a reasonable suspicion?

2. 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?

3. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective procedure by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his detention, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?

4. The parties are requested to submit copies of all documents (record on the applicant ’ s arrest, records of questioning, etc.) relating to the proceedings concerning the applicant ’ s arrest and pre-trial detention.

[A1] ITMARKFactsComplaintsEnd

PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE