Published on 27 March 2023

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 14962/15 Rasim ISAGOV against Azerbaijan lodged on 16 March 2015 communicated on 10 March 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns arrest and administrative conviction of the applicant for distributing leaflets.

The applicant was arrested on 22 December 2014 and convicted to five days’ administrative detention under Articles 39.1 (violation of the rules and duration of pre-election or referendum campaigning), 296 (minor hooliganism) and 310 (failure to comply with the lawful order of a police officer) of the Code of Administrative Offences.

According to the official records, one day before municipal elections the applicant had been handing out leaflets which said “Where do we go?” (“ Biz hara gedirik? ”), disobeyed the police officers when requested to stop the distribution and started swearing loudly, without addressing anyone in particular.

The applicant argued before the domestic courts that he had not conducted any election campaigning at that specified day as his leaflets contained no election campaigning information and that he had not been swearing or disobeying the police.

The applicant complains under Articles 5 § 1, and 10 that his arrest and conviction was unlawful and his freedom of expression was violated as he was convicted for his leaflets which contained no election campaigning information.

The applicant also complains invoking Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b), (c) and (d) that the domestic proceedings against him were unfair in particular because he was neither given adequate time and facilities nor provided with a lawyer for preparation of his defence, the domestic courts failed to analyse the content of the leaflets and to call and question bystanders as witnesses, and the decisions of the domestic courts lacked adequate reasoning.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? Was the applicant’s detention ordered “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”?

2. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant afforded adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence and the opportunity to defend himself through effective legal assistance? Was the applicant’s right to a reasoned decision respected?

3. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, in particular his right to impart information and ideas, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2?