FIFTH SECTION
 
CASE OF MOVSUM SAMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN
(Application no. 48431/11)
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
 
 
STRASBOURG
12 December 2019
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Movsum Samadov v. Azerbaijan,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 André Potocki, President,
 Mārtiņš Mits,
 Lәtif Hüseynov, judges,
and Milan Blaško, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 19 November 2019,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 48431/11) 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 Movsum Mardan oglu Samadov (Mövsüm Mərdan oğlu Səmədov ‑ “the applicant”), on 18 July 2011. 2. The applicant was represented by Mr A. Gasimli and Mr Y. Imanov, lawyers based in Azerbaijan. The Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Əsgərov. 3. On 30 June 2014 the Government were given notice of the application. THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4. The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Baku. 5. He was the chairman of the Islamic Party of Azerbaijan at the time of the events described below. The applicant’s administrative conviction
6. On 2 January 2011 the applicant delivered a speech at a meeting of the general assembly of the Islamic Party of Azerbaijan in which he criticised the ban on wearing veils in schools in Azerbaijan and called the population to protest against this ban. In his speech the applicant also vigorously criticised the general political, economic and social situation in the country. 7. The video recording of the applicant’s speech was broadcast on the Internet and was widely commented on in the media and on social media. 8. At around 8 p.m. on 7 January 2011 when the applicant was a passenger in a car with three other persons in Baku, their car was stopped by the police for breach of traffic rules. The applicant was taken to Narimanov District Police Station No. 18 where at 8.30 p.m. an administrative-offence report (inzibati xəta haqqında protokol) was drawn up against him by police officer, S.B. The report stated that at around 8 p.m., at Heydar Aliyev avenue in Baku, the applicant had disobeyed lawful orders of the police officer. He had been charged with the administrative offence under Article 310.1 (failure to comply with a lawful order of a police officer) of the Code of Administrative Offences (“the CAO”). The applicant made a written comment in the report, noting that he had not disobeyed the police officer. 9. It appears from the documents in the case file that at 9.30 p.m. on the same day the applicant was taken to the Narimanov District Court and appeared before a judge. The applicant was not represented by a lawyer. According to the applicant, he was not given an opportunity to hire a lawyer of his own choosing. According to the transcript of the court hearing and the documents in the case file, as the applicant could not reach a lawyer of his own choosing by telephone, the court appointed a State-funded lawyer. However, the applicant refused the assistance of a State-funded lawyer and decided to defend himself in person. 10. Police officer, S.B. stated before the court that at 8 p.m. on 7 January 2011 during the control of the driver of a car in which the applicant was present as a passenger, the applicant had protested against the control and had disobeyed the orders of the police by preventing them from performing their function. The applicant denied that this had happened. Relying on S.B.’s statement and the administrative-offence report, at 10.15 p.m. on the same day the court found the applicant guilty under Article 310.1 of the CAO and sentenced him to thirteen days’ administrative detention. 11. It appears from the documents submitted to the Court by the Government that on 7 January 2011 the Narimanov District Court’s decision of 7 January 2011 was served on the head of Narimanov District Police Station No. 18 because the applicant refused to receive a copy of that decision. However, there is no document in the case file indicating that the head of Narimanov District Police Station No. 18 subsequently transmitted the copy of the decision in question to the applicant. 12. On 17 January 2011 the applicant, represented by a lawyer of his own choosing, appealed against the Narimanov District Court’s decision of 7 January 2011. The applicant’s lawyer submitted that the applicant’s administrative conviction had been totally unjustified. The lawyer further claimed that he had not been provided with a copy of the first-instance court’s decision, indicating that he had prepared the appeal without having a copy of the Narimanov District Court’s decision of 7 January 2011. 13. According to the applicant’s lawyer, on 19 January 2011 the clerk of the Baku Court of Appeal contacted him by telephone asking him to come to the court. Upon his arrival, the lawyer learned that a hearing would be held in connection with his appeal against the decision of 7 January 2011. It appears from the documents in the case file that the lawyer lodged a request with the Baku Court of Appeal asking the appellate court to ensure the applicant’s presence at the hearing. He further asked the court to give him more time and facilities for the preparation of the defence, because since the applicant’s arrest he had been authorised to meet him only once, on 13 January 2011. 14. On 19 January 2011 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the first-instance court’s decision. The appellate court’s decision made no mention of the applicant’s particular requests and complaints. The hearing was held in the lawyer’s presence, but in the applicant’s absence. It appears from the court decision that the appellate court did not hear any witnesses at the hearing. This decision was not subject to any appeal. Institution of criminal proceedings against the applicant and his remand in custody
15. On 20 January 2011, the last day of his administrative detention, the applicant was charged with the criminal offenses of preparation of terrorism, unlawful possession of weapons and usurpation of state power by force under Articles 28, 214.2.1, 214.2.3, 228.3 and 278 of the Criminal Code. 16. On the same date the Nasimi District Court, relying on the official charges brought against the applicant and the prosecutor’s request to apply the preventive measure of remand in custody (həbs qətimkan tədbiri), ordered the applicant’s detention for a period of three months. The judge substantiated the necessity of this measure by the gravity of the applicant’s alleged criminal acts and the possibility of his absconding and obstructing the investigation. 17. On 21 January 2011 the applicant appealed against that decision, complaining about the lack of justification for application of the preventive measure of remand in custody. He argued that there was no risk of his absconding or obstructing the investigation and that the first-instance court had failed to take into account his social status, family situation, place of residence or other personal circumstances, when it had ordered his pre-trial detention. 18. On 25 January 2011 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the detention order was justified. The appellate court made no mention of the applicant’s particular complaints. Further developments
19. On 9 February 2011 the applicant lodged an application with the Nasimi District Court, asking to be placed under house arrest in lieu of being held in pre-trial detention. He claimed, in particular, that his pre-trial detention was not justified and that there was no reason for it to continue. In support of his application, he pointed out that he had a permanent place of residence, that he had no criminal record, that he had three children, and that he was the chairman of a political party. 20. On 15 February 2011 the Nasimi District Court dismissed the application as unfounded. 21. On 25 February 2011 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first‑instance court’s decision. 22. Following a request from the prosecutor in charge of the case for an extension of the period of the applicant’s pre-trial detention, on 15 April 2011 the Nasimi District Court extended the applicant’s remand in custody until 8 August 2011. The court substantiated the need for the extension by the necessity of additional time to carry out further investigative actions on account of the complexity of the case. 23. On the same day, in a separate decision, the Nasimi District Court also dismissed the applicant’s application to be put under house arrest in place of pre-trial detention. 24. On 18 April 2011 the applicant appealed against both decisions of the Nasimi District Court, reiterating his previous complaints. 25. On 22 April 2011 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed, in two separate decisions, the applicant’s appeals against the Nasimi District Court’s two decisions of 15 April 2011. 26. No further extension decisions were included in the case file. 27. On 7 October 2011 the Baku Court of Serious Crimes found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to twelve years’ imprisonment. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
28. The relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure concerning pre-trial detention are described in detail in the Court’s judgments in Farhad Aliyev v. Azerbaijan (no. 37138/06, §§ 83-102, 9 November 2010) and Muradverdiyev v. Azerbaijan (no. 16966/06, §§ 35‑49, 9 December 2010). The relevant decisions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court concerning pre-trial detention are described in detail in the Court’s judgment in Allahverdiyev v. Azerbaijan (no. 49192/08, §§ 31‑32, 6 March 2014). 29. The relevant provisions of the CAO are described in detail in the Court’s judgment in Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan (no. 60259/11, §§ 32‑38, 15 October 2015). THE LAW
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION
30. The applicant complained under Article 5 of the Convention that the domestic courts had failed to justify the need for his pre-trial detention and provide reasons for his continued detention. The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.”
Admissibility
31. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. MeritsThe parties’ submissions

32. The applicant maintained his complaint. 33. The Government contested the applicant’s submissions, pointing out that the domestic courts had correctly assessed the applicant’s situation and delivered lawful decisions on his pre-trial detention.

Outcome for Article 5: violation