YAGUBLU v. AZERBAIJAN

• Judgment Date: 15 July 2021
• ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2021:0715JUD006968612
• Counsel: ALIZADE A.
• Date: 15 July 2021
• Application Number: 69686/12
• Court: Fifth Section Committee (European Court of Human Rights)
• Respondent State: Azerbaiján
• Applied Rules: 5;5-1;6;6+6-3;6-1;6-3

FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF YAGUBLU v. AZERBAIJAN

(Application no. 69686/12)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

15 July 2021

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Yagublu v. Azerbaijan,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Mārtiņš Mits, President,
Jovan Ilievski,
Ivana Jelić, judges,
and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 69686/12) against the Republic of Azerbaijan lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by an Azerbaijani national, Mr Tofig Rashid oglu Yagublu (Tofiq Rəşid oğlu Yaqublu) (“the applicant”), on 17 September 2012;

the decision to give notice of the application to the Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”);

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated in private on 24 June 2021,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

INTRODUCTION

1. The applicant complained that his arrests and periods of detention by the police, had been in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention and that the administrative offence proceedings against him had fallen short of the guarantees of Article 6 of the Convention. The applicant also complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment during his detention following his arrest on 25 May 2012, and under Article 13 of the Convention that his right to an effective remedy had been breached.

THE FACTS

2. The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Baku. The applicant was represented by Mr A. Alizade, a lawyer practising in Azerbaijan.

3. The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Əsgərov.

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

1. Background information

5. At the material time the applicant was a member of an opposition political union, the Public Chamber (İctimai Palata), the deputy chairman of the Musavat Party and a columnist for the Yeni Musavat newspaper.

6. The Public Chamber organised two protests on 24 and 25 May 2012, which were not authorised by the Baku City Executive Authority. The Public Chamber attempted to hold the first demonstration in front of the public television building and the second at the Seaside park (Dənizkənarı Milli park) in Baku. Apparently, both demonstrations were dispersed as soon as they started.

2. The applicant’s first administrative arrest and the ensuing court proceedings

7. According to the applicant, at around 10.30 a.m. on 24 May 2012 he left his home to go to work. On his way, about 100-150 metres away from his home in the Garachukhur settlement, he was arrested by several plain‑clothes police officers and was taken to the Surakhani district police office (“the Surakhani DPO”). After his arrival at the Surakhani DPO, the head of the police office and another police officer consecutively had “prophylactic” conversations with him. Then another police officer, Y.M., informed him that there was “an order to arrest” him. At around 4 p.m. the applicant was taken to Surakhani district police station no. 31. The applicant did not explain the content of the “prophylactic” conversations.

8. According to the Government, the applicant was arrested at around 12 noon on 24 May 2012, near a market in the Amirjan settlement and was taken directly to the Surakhani district police station No. 31.

9. At the Surakhani district police station No. 31 a police officer, E.A., issued an administrative offence record (inzibati xəta haqqında protokol) in respect of the applicant, setting out the charges against him. The applicant was charged with an administrative offence under Article 310.1 of the Code of Administrative Offences (“the CAO”) (failure to comply with a lawful order of a police officer). According to a report (raport) issued by Y.M. and the administrative offence record, Y.M. stopped the applicant because the latter had been noticed “behaving suspiciously” and he arrested the applicant for failing to comply with an order to produce an identity document and “using offensive language against the police”.

10. According to the applicant, he was not given access to a lawyer after his arrest or while he was in police custody, his request for a lawyer had been ignored.

11. At around 5 p.m. on the same day the applicant was taken to the Surakhani district court, which adopted its decision on the merits.

12. During the trial the applicant was not represented by a lawyer. According to the transcript of the hearing, the applicant declared that he would defend himself in person.

13. The first-instance court heard two police officers (E.A. and Y.M.) as witnesses. In their statements those police officers reiterated the official version of the reasons for the applicant’s arrest (see paragraph 9 above). The applicant contested the police officers’ statements. He argued that he had been arrested in a different place and under different circumstances. He also argued that he had been framed for his political activity and that the purpose of his arrest was to prevent him from participating in the demonstration held in front of the public television building.

14. The court did not address the applicant’s statements. It found the applicant guilty under Article 310.1 of the CAO and sentenced him to a fine of 20 New Azerbaijani manats (AZN). The applicant was released from the courtroom.

15. The applicant lodged an appeal with the Baku Court of Appeal, presenting his version of the facts surrounding his arrest. He complained that his arrest, detention for more than eight hours and conviction had been unlawful (arbitrary), that during his detention he had not been allowed to contact his family and his mobile phone had been taken from him. He further complained that his right to a fair trial had been violated. He argued, in particular, that his conviction had been based only on the two police officers’ submissions,...