BAGIROV v. AZERBAIJAN

 
 
 
Communicated on 26 April 2019
 
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 41832/15
Ismayil Sadagat oglu BAGIROV
against Azerbaijan
lodged on 21 August 2015
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Ismayil Bagirov, is a Jehovah’s Witness. He is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1995 and lives in Baku. He is represented before the Court by Mr B. Shane, Mr A. Carbonneau and Mr J. Wise, lawyers practising in Vantaa, Paris and Tbilisi respectively.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 21 January 2015 the applicant was preaching in the corridor of a shopping mall in Baku when he was approached by a private security guard. The guard told him that there had been a complaint and escorted him to a room marked “Police”. The guard then called a police patrol, which took the applicant to Garadagh District police station no. 10. After three hours at the police station, the applicant was taken to the Garadagh District Court.
On the same date, the court adjourned the hearing at the request of the applicant and he was released in the courtroom. The hearing was adjourned several times more at the request of the applicant.
On 29 January 2015 the Garadagh District Court found the applicant guilty of violating the legislation on organising and holding religious meetings under Article 299.0.2 of the Code of Administrative Offences and fined him 1,500 Azerbaijani manats (approximately 1,300 euros at the time).
On 12 February 2015 the applicant lodged an appeal. Relying on various Articles of the Convention, he argued that he had not been engaged in unlawful activities and had been arrested without legitimate cause.
On 27 February 2015 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the first-instance court.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention of an unlawful interference by the domestic authorities with his freedom of worship and practice, which amounted to a violation of his rights to freedom of religion and to freedom of expression.
The applicant further complains under Article 14 read in conjunction with Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention that he suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention rights on the grounds of belonging to a religious minority.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1.  Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of religion within the meaning of Article 9 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 9 § 2 of the Convention?
 
2.  Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, 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 of the Convention?
 
3.  Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention rights on the grounds of belonging to a religious minority, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention? In particular, has the applicant been subjected to different treatment in manifesting his religion? If so, did that difference in treatment pursue a legitimate aim and did it have a reasonable justification?

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy