Published on 19 February 2024

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 53205/17 Aziz ORUJOV against Azerbaijan lodged on 19 July 2017 communicated on 1 February 2024

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The present case concerns the institution of criminal proceedings against the applicant as well as his pre-trial detention.

The applicant is a journalist, a director of an internet-based TV channel, Kanal 13 , and a co-founder of a non-governmental organisation called the Caucasus Media Studies Centre ( Qafqaz Media Tədqiqatları Mərkəzi ).

On 2 May 2017 the applicant was arrested on the way to his work. He was taken to a police office and then to the Nasimi District Court where he was convicted and sentenced to thirty days of administrative imprisonment (so ‑ called “administrative arrest”) under Article 535.1 of the Code of Administrative Offences, for alleged hooliganism. The Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s judgment.

On 1 June 2017, a few hours before that sentence expired, the applicant was taken to the Grave Crimes Investigation Department of the General Prosecutor’s Office. He was charged with criminal offences under Articles 192.2.2 (illegal entrepreneurship and gaining large-scale profit) and 308.2 (abuse of power) of the Criminal Code.

On the same day, the Nasimi District Court ordered the applicant’s detention pending his trial, until 17 September 2017. The Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s decision. Subsequently, in August 2017 the applicant’s pre ‑ trial detention was prolonged until 17 December 2017. The Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s decision extending the pre-trial detention. During the appellate court’s hearings, the applicant was held in a metal cage in the courtroom.

In addition, in June 2017 the applicant unsuccessfully requested the Nasimi District Court to order his release on bail or, alternatively, place him in house arrest. The Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s decision.

On 3 June 2017 a search and seizure were carried out in the applicant’s home and in the office of Kanal 13 .

The applicant complains under Articles 3 and 5 § 4 of the Convention that he was subjected to degrading treatment because he was held in a metal cage during the appellate court’s hearings concerning his pre-trial detention and that, during those hearings, he could not communicate with his lawyer.

Relying on Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 and Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the administrative offence proceedings concerning the alleged hooliganism were in breach of various fair-trial guarantees.

Relying on Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4, Articles 10, 11 and 18 of the Convention the applicant complains, in particular, that there had been no reasonable suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence and that the proceedings against him had been fabricated, connected to his status of a co ‑ founder of the Caucasus Media Studies Centre and to his activity as a journalist, and aimed at ending the activity of Kanal 13 ; that there had been no sufficient and relevant reasons for his continued pre-trial detention; and that the domestic courts ignored his pertinent arguments (in particular, his allegations about the lack of reasonable suspicion).

The applicant also complains that the search of his home was in breach of the relevant domestic law and of his rights under Article 8 of the Convention (right to private and family life, home and correspondence).

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention on account of his being held in a metal cage in the courtroom (see, among other authorities, Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§ 113-39, ECHR 2014 (extracts), and Natig Jafarov v. Azerbaijan , no. 64581/16, §§ 37-40, 7 November 2019)?

2. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s pre-trial detention compatible with Article 5 § 1 (c) in terms of being justified and based on a reasonable suspicion (see, among many other authorities, Ibrahimov and Mammadov v. Azerbaijan , nos. 63571/16 and 5 others, §§ 113-30, 13 February 2020, and Rasul Jafarov v. Azerbaijan , no. 69981/14, § 114-34, 17 March 2016)?

3. Did the domestic courts give sufficient and relevant reasons for the applicant’s continued detention, within the meaning of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Allahverdiyev v. Azerbaijan , no. 49192/08, §§ 51-63, 6 March 2014, and Mammadov and Others v. Azerbaijan , no. 35432/07, §§ 95-100, 21 February 2019)?

4. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective procedure by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? Was the procedure by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his detention in conformity with that provision? In particular, was the principle of equality of arms between the applicant and the prosecution respected?

5. As regards the administrative offence proceedings, did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan , no. 60259/11, §§ 74-96, 15 October 2015, and Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan , nos. 67360/11 and 2 others, §§ 110-35, 11 February 2016)? In particular, were the applicant’s right to a reasoned decision and the principle of equality of arms respected?

6. Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life, home or correspondence, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, on account of the search measure conducted in his home (see, among many other authorities, Avaz Zeynalov v. Azerbaijan , nos. 37816/12 and 25260/14, §§ 78-92, 22 April 2021)?

7. Were the restrictions imposed by the State on the applicant, purportedly pursuant to Articles 5 and 10 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by those provisions, contrary to Article 18 of the Convention?

The parties are requested to provide documentary evidence in support of their replies and submissions, including copies of the transcripts of the court hearings and the applicant’s appeals and requests.