Communicated on 26 August 2014

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 8513/11 Baybala ABIL against Azerbaijan lodged on 5 January 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Baybala Abil , is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1952 and lives in Baku . He is represented before the Court by Mr I. Aliyev , a lawyer practising in Azerbaijan .

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

The applicant was nominated by the Classic Popular Front Party to stand as one of its candidates in the parliamentary elections of 7 November 2010. On an unspecified date in early October 2010 he applied for registration as a candidate in the single-mandate Garadagh Electoral Constituency No. 11 and, on 5 October 2010, the Constituency Electoral Commission (“the ConEC”) formally registered him as a candidate.

In the meantime, while his registration was pending, on 4 October 2010 several posters containing the applicant ’ s photograph, biography and his alleged electoral platform were hung on walls of various buildings in Qizildash, a settlement in the Garadagh district. According to the applicant, this was not done by him or his staff, as the official campaigning period had not yet started (it would start on 15 October 2010).

According to the applicant, he found out about this at 8 a.m. on 4 October 2010. At 8:30 a.m. he informed the ConEC chairman of this fact by telephone and complained orally that it had been done by his political opponents as an attempt to sabotage his electoral candidacy. Later that day, he submitted a written complaint to the ConEC, where he also mentioned that the posters in question contained a lot of incorrect factual information (such as an incorrect date of birth, factually wrong information concerning his professional and political career, an incorrect name for his political party, and so on). He noted that such errors simply could not have been made if those posters had been produced by his electoral staff.

On the same day, the applicant was informed that, by a decision of 4 October 2010, the ConEC decided to issue a formal warning to the applicant for starting his electoral campaigning early, in breach of the requirements of Article 75.2 of the Electoral Code, which specified the allowed time period for pre-election campaigning. The decision was taken in the applicant ’ s absence.

The applicant lodged a complaint against this decision with the Central Electoral Commission (“the CEC”). By a decision of 11 October 2010, the CEC rejected the applicant ’ s complaint, without inviting him to be heard in person. On 20 October and 1 November 2010 respectively, the Baku Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court rejected his further appeals.

In the meantime, on 10 October 2010 several residents of Alat, another settlement located in the applicant ’ s constituency, submitted handwritten complaints to the ConEC, claiming that on 9 October 2010 the applicant ’ s electoral staff members had fixed a number of the applicant ’ s campaign posters on the external walls of their houses. One of them stated that he had been given money for assistance in hanging posters around the settlement and had been promised a further payment. On the same day, the ConEC requested chairmen of several relevant precinct electoral commissions to verify these allegations. Some of the chairmen confirmed that the applicant ’ s campaign materials had been disseminated on the territory of their precincts.

On 12 October 2010 the ConEC took a decision to request the court to sentence the applicant to an administrative fine for breach of Articles 2.6.10 (election participants ’ obligation not to entice voters by unlawful means), 75.2, 88.4.1 and 88.4.2 of the Electoral Code. The decision was taken in the applicant ’ s absence, because the notification had been sent to the applicant by post in a belated manner.

On 15 October 2010 the Garadagh District Court found that the applicant had breached Article 39.1 (breach of rules or deadlines for pre-election campaigning) of the Code of Administrative Offences (“the CAO”) and sentenced him to an administrative fine in the amount of 25 Azerbaijani manats (around 25 euros). This decision was subsequently upheld by the Baku Court of Appeal o n 29 October 2010 .

Referring to the Garadagh District Court ’ s decision of 15 October 2010, the ConEC decided, on the same day, to request the Baku Court of Appeal to cancel the applicant ’ s candidacy for breach of Article 39.1 of the CAO and Articles 75.2, 88.4.1 (giving money to voters) and 88.4.2 (rewarding or promising rewards to voters based on the election results) of the Electoral Code. This decision was also taken in the applicant ’ s absence .

By a decision of 19 October 2010 the Baku Court of Appeal granted the ConEC ’ s request and cancelled the applicant ’ s candidacy. Following an appeal by the applicant, on 1 November 2010 the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal ’ s decision.

Starting on 4 October 2010 and throughout the subsequent proceedings, the applicant sent numerous complaints to various electoral commissions, prosecution authorities, the President, and other authorities, consistently and repeatedly claiming that he had absolutely nothing to do with the alleged illegal campaigning, which had been entirely staged and was a deliberate “frame-up” by his political opponents aimed at disqualifying him from the election.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complain s under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that his registration as a candidate for the parliamentary elections was cancelled arbitrarily and, as a result, his right to stand for election was violated. In particular, he complain s that various decision s resulting i n the cancellation of his candidacy were based on false and fabricated evidence, that the allegations against him were not duly proven , and that the relevant proceedings did not provide sufficient safeguards against arbitrariness.

2. Relying on Article s 13 and 14 of the Convention in conjunction with the above complaint, the applicant argue s that the domestic remedies in his case were ineffective and that he was discriminated against on the ground of his political affiliation .

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Has there been a breach of the applicant ’ s right under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to stand as a candidate in free elections which ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of legislature? Was the applicant afforded a possibility to effectively defend his position in the proceedings concerning the cancellation of his registration as a candidate?