FIFTH SECTION
 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE OF BAYRAMLI v. AZERBAIJAN
 
(Applications nos. 72230/11 and 43061/13)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
 
 
 
 
STRASBOURG
 
16 February 2017
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Bayramli v. Azerbaijan,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Faris Vehabović, President,
 Khanlar Hajiyev,
 Carlo Ranzoni, judges,
and Milan Blaško, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 30 June 2016,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in two applications (nos. 72230/11 and 43061/13) 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, Ms Gozal Oruj gizi Bayramli (“the applicant”), on 12 October 2011 and 22 May 2013 respectively. 2. The applicant was represented by Mr R. Mustafazade and Mr A. Mustafayev, lawyers practising in Azerbaijan. The Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Asgarov. 3. On 12 February 2015 and 29 August 2014 respectively the complaints concerning Article 3, raised in application no. 72230/11 only, and Articles 5, 6, 10 and 11, raised in both applications, were communicated to the Government, and the remainder of both applications was declared inadmissible. THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4. The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Baku. At the material time she was deputy chairperson of one of the main opposition parties in the country, the Popular Front Party of Azerbaijan. A. Administrative arrests
5. On 17 April 2011 and 26 January 2013 the applicant participated in demonstrations organised by the opposition in Baku. 6. On 11 April 2011, the organisers had given the relevant authority, the Baku City Executive Authority (“the BCEA”), notice of the demonstration of 17 April 2011. It appears that no prior notice was given to the BCEA by the organisers of the demonstration of 26 January 2013. Information about that assembly was disseminated through Facebook or the press. 7. The BCEA refused to authorise the demonstration of 17 April 2011 at the place indicated by the organisers and proposed a different location on the outskirts of Baku – the yard of a driving school situated in the 20th residential area of the Sabail District. The BCEA noted that the place proposed by the organisers was in an area with heavy traffic. 8. Nevertheless, the organisers decided to hold the demonstrations in the centre of Baku. 9. According to the applicant, the demonstrations were intended to be peaceful and were conducted in a peaceful manner. The participants of the demonstration of 17 April 2011 were demanding free and fair elections and democratic reforms in the country, and protesting about impediments to freedom of assembly. The participants of the demonstration of 26 January 2013 were condemning the use of force by the police against participants of previous demonstrations. 10. The applicant attended both demonstrations, but shortly after they had begun the police started to disperse them. In both cases the applicant was arrested during the dispersal operation and taken to a police station. 11. According to the applicant, during her arrest in the first case several police officers twisted her arms behind her back, held her head down and forced her to move in that position for 20-25 metres in the direction of a police car. As a result, the muscles in her neck, arms, back and other parts of her body hurt. At the police station she was kept handcuffed. In a photograph, submitted to the Court by the applicant and allegedly taken at the time of her arrest, the applicant is shown with both arms twisted behind her back by two police officers and with her body bent as a result of that restraint. 12. In both cases on the day of the applicant’s arrest, an “administrative offence report” (inzibati xəta haqqında protokol) was issued in respect of her. In the first case the report stated that by deliberately failing to comply with a lawful order from the police, the applicant had committed an administrative offence under Article 310.1 of the Code of Administrative Offences (“the CAO”). In the second case the applicant was charged with an administrative offence under Article 298.1 of the CAO (breach of the rules on the organisation and holding of assemblies, by an assembly organiser). 13. According to the applicant, she was never served with copies of the administrative offence reports or with other documents from her case files. In neither case was she given access to a lawyer after the arrest or while in police custody. B. Court proceedings against the applicant
14. In the first case the applicant was brought before the Nasimi District Court on 18 April 2011, the day following her arrest. In the second case she was brought before the Sabail District Court on 26 January 2013, the day of her arrest. 15. According to the applicant, the hearing before the court in both cases was very brief. In the second case members of the public were not allowed inside the courtroom, even though the court had not taken a formal decision to close the hearing to the public. 16. According to the applicant, in neither case was she given an opportunity to hire a lawyer of her own choice. 17. State-funded lawyers were appointed to assist the applicant. The records of the court hearings in both cases show that in their oral submissions the State-funded lawyers briefly stated that the applicant was not guilty and/or asked the respective court to discontinue the case. 18. In both cases the courts questioned only the police officers who, according to the official records, had arrested the applicant or issued an administrative offence report in respect of her. The police officers testified that the applicant had attempted to stage an unauthorised demonstration, and, in the second case, had also incited others to participate in such an assembly. 19. In the first case the first-instance court found that the applicant had participated or attempted to participate in an unauthorised demonstration. In the second case the court found that the applicant had incited people to participate in an unlawful assembly and, by doing so, had violated the rules on organising and holding assemblies. 20. By a decision of 18 April 2011 the first-instance court in the first case convicted the applicant under Article 310.1 of the CAO and sentenced her to five days’ “administrative” detention. By a decision of 26 January 2013 the court in the second case convicted the applicant under Article 298.1 of the CAO and sentenced her to a fine of 2,000 manats (AZN). 21. On unspecified dates the applicant lodged appeals before the Baku Court of Appeal, arguing that her convictions were in violation of her rights because the demonstrations in which she had participated had been peaceful. She also complained that her arrests had been unlawful and that the hearings before the respective first-instance courts had not been fair. 22. In the first case the applicant also requested the Court of Appeal to order a forensic examination of the injuries she had allegedly sustained during her arrest. The court disregarded that request. The court also disregarded the applicant’s requests to examine video recordings of the arrest made by some journalists; to question the police officers appearing in those video recordings; and to demand the medical record issued in respect of the applicant in the detention facility where she had served her administrative detention. 23. In the first case the applicant was assisted before the Baku Court of Appeal by a lawyer of her own choice. In the second case she was not represented by a lawyer. 24. In both cases, on 22 April 2011 and 6 February 2013 respectively, the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the decision of the first-instance court. C. The applicant’s allegation of ill-treatment
25. On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a complaint before the General Prosecutor’s Office asking it to conduct an investigation into ill‑treatment allegedly committed by the police during her arrest. 26. By a letter of 25 May 2011 the General Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant’s lawyer that the complaint had been forwarded to the Baku City prosecutor’s office for examination. The letter also instructed the Baku City prosecutor’s office to inform the lawyer about the results of the examination. 27. On an unspecified date, the applicant was summoned to the Nasimi District prosecutor’s office and questioned in connection with her complaint of ill-treatment. 28. According to the applicant, neither she nor her lawyer was informed about any actions taken by the authorities to investigate her complaint. It was only after making enquiries about the outcome of the investigation, in January 2012, that the applicant managed to obtain a copy of an investigator’s decision of 16 June 2011 refusing to open a criminal case. 29. The applicant did not lodge a complaint with a court against the decision of 16 June 2011. II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND INTERNATIONAL DOCUMENTS
30. At the time of both of the applicant’s arrests, under Article 5 § IV of the Law on Freedom of Assembly of 13 November 1998 no prior written notification was required for spontaneous assemblies. 31. At the time of the applicant’s arrest on 17 April 2011, Articles 298, 310 and 410 of the Code of Administrative Offences of 2000 (“the CAO”) provided as follows:
Article 298
Breach of the rules on the organisation and holding of assemblies, demonstrations, protests, marches and pickets
“Any breach of the rules, set forth under the legislation, on the organisation and holding of assemblies, demonstrations, protests, marches and pickets shall be punishable by a reprimand or a fine of seven to thirteen manats [AZN].”
Article 310
Deliberate failure to comply with a lawful order of a police officer
or military serviceman
“310.1. Deliberate failure [by an individual] to comply with a lawful order of a police officer or military serviceman carrying out their duties to protect public order shall be punishable by a fine of twenty to twenty-five manats [AZN] or, if that sanction is inadequate in the circumstances of the case and taking into account the character of the offender, by administrative detention for a term of up to fifteen days.”

Outcome for Article 5: violation