Relying on Article 5 of the Convention, the applicant alleges that he was unlawfully arrested and detained in the absence of a reasonable suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence, that his pre-trial detention after 22\u00a0October 2013 was unlawful, and that the domestic courts failed to justify his pre-trial detention.<\/p>\n
FIFTH SECTION This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n In the case of Sadigov v. Azerbaijan,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m, President, Having regard to:<\/p>\n the application (no.\u00a01459\/14) against the Republic of Azerbaijan lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) on 25\u00a0November 2013 by an Azerbaijani national, Mr Yadigar Sadig oglu Sadigov (Yadigar Sad\u0131q o\u011flu Sad\u0131qov \u2013 \u201cthe applicant\u201d), born in 1968 and represented before the Court by Mr K. Bagirov, a lawyer based in Azerbaijan;<\/p>\n the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning the alleged absence of a reasonable suspicion that the applicant committed a criminal offence (Article 5 \u00a7 1), the alleged unlawfulness of his detention after 22\u00a0October 2013 (Article 5 \u00a7 1) and the alleged lack of justification for his pre-trial detention (Article 5 \u00a7 3) to the Azerbaijani Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d), represented by their Agent, Mr \u00c7. \u018fsg\u0259rov, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible;<\/p>\n the decision to give priority to the application (Rule 41 of the Rules of Court);<\/p>\n the parties\u2019 observations;<\/p>\n Having deliberated in private on 7 July 2022,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. Relying on Article 5 of the Convention, the applicant alleges that he was unlawfully arrested and detained in the absence of a reasonable suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence, that his pre-trial detention after 22\u00a0October 2013 was unlawful, and that the domestic courts failed to justify his pre-trial detention.<\/p>\n 2. The applicant was an active member of the Musavat Party in Lankaran. He also worked as an adviser to the Chairman of the Musavat Party.<\/p>\n 3. According to the applicant, on 25 June 2013, while he was at a tea house with his friends in Lankaran, a certain R.S. approached him and began insulting the opposition. The applicant realised that it was an act of provocation and left the tea house without having a dispute with that person.<\/p>\n 4. Following a complaint lodged by R.S., on 26 June 2013 criminal proceedings were instituted and the police questioned R.S., who stated that at around 7 p.m. on 25 June 2013 the applicant had beaten and insulted him in front of a tea house. It appears from the documents available to the Court that the police drew up a record relating to the inspection of the scene of the incident in the presence of R.S. and questioned six witnesses who confirmed that there had been an altercation between the applicant and R.S. and that R.S. had been beaten by the applicant. A forensic report dated 26 June 2013 also established the existence of various injuries on R.S.\u2019s body.<\/p>\n 5. On 27 June 2013 the applicant was arrested as a suspect and on 29 June 2013 he was charged under Article 221.3 (hooliganism) of the Criminal Code. He was in particular accused of beating and insulting R.S. on 25 June 2013 in front of a tea house.<\/p>\n 6. On 29 June 2013 the Lankaran District Court, referring to the official charge brought against the applicant and a request by the prosecutor to apply the preventive measure of remand in custody, ordered the applicant\u2019s pre-trial detention for a period of two months, citing the gravity of the charge and the likelihood that if released, he would abscond and obstruct the investigation.<\/p>\n 7. On 15 July 2013 the Shirvan Court of Appeal upheld that decision.<\/p>\n 8. On 13 and 26 August 2013 the relevant district and appellate courts dismissed the applicant\u2019s request to be put under house arrest in place of pre\u2011trial detention.<\/p>\n 9. Between 24 August and 7 October 2013, the relevant district and appellate courts, in decisions extending the term of the applicant\u2019s pre-trial detention or in rulings on appeals lodged by him, twice examined the justification for the applicant\u2019s continued detention and kept that measure in place, essentially referring to the necessity of additional time to carry out further investigative actions. The last decision extended the applicant\u2019s pre\u2011trial detention until 22 October 2013.<\/p>\n 10. It appears from the documents available to the Court that on 22\u00a0October 2013, the prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the trial court and on the same date the Lankaran District Court decided to extend the applicant\u2019s pre\u2011trial detention until the preliminary hearing of the trial court.<\/p>\n 11. On 5 November 2013 the Lankaran District Court held a preliminary hearing at which it decided, inter alia, that the preventive measure of remand in custody in respect of the applicant should remain unchanged.<\/p>\n 12. On 13 January 2014 the Lankaran District Court found the applicant guilty under Articles 127.2.3 (deliberate infliction of less serious harm to health in a publicly dangerous way and with hooligan intent) and 221.3 (hooliganism) of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to six years\u2019 imprisonment.<\/p>\n 13. On 22 July 2014 the Shrivan Court of Appeal upheld the applicant\u2019s conviction but reduced his sentence to four years\u2019 imprisonment.<\/p>\n 14. On 13 January 2015 the Supreme Court upheld the applicant\u2019s conviction but reduced his sentence to three years and six months\u2019 imprisonment.<\/p>\n 15. The applicant was released from serving the remainder of his sentence by a presidential pardon granted on 17 March 2016.<\/p>\n THE COURT\u2019S ASSESSMENT<\/strong><\/p>\n I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 \u00a7 1 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 16. The applicant complained that his arrest and detention had been unlawful because there had been no reasonable suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence and that his pre-trial detention after 22 October 2013 had been unlawful, as it had not been based on any court decision.<\/p>\n 17. The Court refers to the general principles established in its case-law and set out in Selahattin Demirta\u015f v. Turkey (no. 2) ([GC], no. 14305\/17, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0311-21, 22 December 2020), which are equally pertinent to the present case.<\/p>\n 18. In the present case, the applicant was suspected of the criminal offence of hooliganism when the first-instance court ordered his pre-trial detention. It is not disputed that the type of actions of which the applicant was suspected qualified as a criminal offence under domestic law. The Court observes that the initial suspicion against the applicant was based on the statements of the victim, R.S., as well as on the statements of other witnesses who identified the applicant as the person who had been involved in the altercation with R.S. The forensic report of 26 June 2013 also established the existence of various injuries on R.S.\u2019s body (see paragraph 4 above).<\/p>\n 19. Accordingly, the Court considers that the above-mentioned evidence objectively linked the applicant to the alleged criminal offence and was sufficient to have created a \u201creasonable suspicion\u201d against him (compare Novruz Ismayilov v. Azerbaijan, no. 16794\/05, \u00a7\u00a7 42-43, 20 February 2014, and Zayidov v. Azerbaijan, no. 11948\/08, \u00a7\u00a7 43-45, 20 February 2014).<\/p>\n 20. As regards the applicant\u2019s complaint that he had been detained after 22 October 2013 in the absence of any court decision, the Court cannot accept the applicant\u2019s assertions in that regard since his pre-trial detention after 22\u00a0October 2013 was based on the Lankaran District Court\u2019s decisions dated 22 October and 5 November 2013 (see paragraphs 10 and 11 above).<\/p>\n 21. For these reasons, the Court finds that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article\u00a035 \u00a7\u00a7\u00a03 (a) and 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 \u00a7 3 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 22. The applicant complained that the domestic courts had failed to justify his pre-trial detention.<\/p>\n 23. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.<\/p>\n 24. It further refers to the general principles established in its case-law and set out in Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova ([GC], no.\u00a023755\/07, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a084\u201191, 5 July 2016), which are equally pertinent to the present case.<\/p>\n 25. As regards the period to be taken into consideration for the purposes of Article 5 \u00a7 3, the Court notes that this period commenced on 27 June 2013, when the applicant was arrested, and ended on 13 January 2014, when the Lankaran District Court convicted him. Thus, the applicant was held in pre\u2011trial detention for six months and seventeen days in total.<\/p>\n 26. The Court observes that the domestic courts, in their decisions on the applicant\u2019s detention, used a standard template and limited themselves to repeating a number of grounds for detention in an abstract and stereotyped way, without giving any reasons why they considered those grounds relevant to the applicant\u2019s case. They also failed to mention any case\u2011specific facts relevant to those grounds and to substantiate them with relevant and sufficient reasons and dismissed the applicant\u2019s request to be put under house arrest in place of pre-trial detention without duly examining the arguments put forward by him. The Court has repeatedly found violations of Article 5 \u00a7 3 in previous Azerbaijani cases where similar shortcomings were noted and analysed in detail (see Farhad Aliyev v.\u00a0Azerbaijan, no.\u00a037138\/06, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0191\u201194, 9\u00a0November 2010; Muradverdiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 16966\/06, \u00a7\u00a7 87-91, 9\u00a0December 2010; and Avaz Zeynalov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 37816\/12 and 25260\/14, \u00a7\u00a7 61-62, 22 April 2021). The Court notes that the domestic courts also cited irrelevant grounds when they extended the applicant\u2019s pre-trial detention. In particular, they stated that more time was needed to carry out further investigative actions (see paragraph 9 above). However, the Court reiterates that, under Article 5 \u00a7 3, grounds such as the need to implement further investigative measures, or the fact that proceedings have not yet been completed, do not correspond to any of the acceptable reasons for detaining a person pending trial (see Allahverdiyev v.\u00a0Azerbaijan, no.\u00a049192\/08, \u00a7 60, 6 March 2014, and Mammadov and Others v.\u00a0Azerbaijan, no. 35432\/07, \u00a7 99, 21 February 2019).<\/p>\n 27. In view of the foregoing considerations, the Court finds that the legal issue raised in the present case under Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention is of a repetitive nature and it does not see any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion. The Court therefore considers that the authorities failed to give \u201crelevant\u201d and \u201csufficient\u201d reasons to justify the need for the applicant\u2019s pre-trial detention.<\/p>\n 28. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention.<\/p>\n APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 29. The applicant claimed 29,550 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage for expenses incurred on account of his detention. In particular, he submitted that his family had spent that amount on sending food to him and regularly visiting him in prison. The applicant claimed EUR 58,000 in respect of non\u2011pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n 30. He also claimed EUR 3,050 in respect of legal services incurred in the proceedings before the domestic courts and the Court and EUR\u00a0638 in respect of translation expenses.<\/p>\n 31. The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s claims were unsubstantiated.<\/p>\n 32. As regards the applicant\u2019s claim in respect of pecuniary damage, the Court does not find any causal link between the damage claimed and the violation found (see Efendiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 27304\/07, \u00a7\u00a060, 18\u00a0December 2014; Yagublu v. Azerbaijan, no. 31709\/13, \u00a7 68, 5\u00a0November 2015; and Haziyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 19842\/15, \u00a7 49, 6 December 2018). However, the Court considers that the applicant has suffered non-pecuniary damage which cannot be compensated for solely by the finding of a violation and awards the applicant EUR 3,000 under this head, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.<\/p>\n 33. Having regard to the documents in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award EUR 500 covering costs under all heads, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.<\/p>\n 34. The Court further considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. Declares the complaint under Article 5 \u00a7 3 (the alleged lack of justification for pre-trial detention) of the Convention admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;<\/p>\n 2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention;<\/p>\n 3. Holds<\/p>\n (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:<\/p>\n (i) EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n (ii) EUR 500 (five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;<\/p>\n (b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;<\/p>\n 4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant\u2019s claim for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 1 September 2022, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Martina Keller \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m
\nCASE OF SADIGOV v. AZERBAIJAN<\/strong>
\n(Application no. 1459\/14)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n1 September 2022<\/p>\n
\nIvana Jeli\u0107,
\nMattias Guyomar, judges,
\nand Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nDeputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0President<\/p>\n