Communicated on 12 March 2018<\/p>\n
FIFTH SECTION<\/p>\n
Application no. 406\/12
\nAdam JAFAROV and others
\nagainst Azerbaijan
\nlodged on 2 January 2012<\/p>\n
STATEMENT OF FACTS<\/p>\n
The ten individual applicants whose particulars are set out in the appendix belong to the Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses organization and the eleventh applicant is a local community of Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses. They are represented before the Court by Mr R. Cook, Mr A. Carbonneau and Mr J. Wise, lawyers practising in the United Kingdom, France and Georgia respectively.<\/p>\n
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.<\/p>\n
Under the domestic legislation, legal entities and individual persons must obtain permission from the State Committee for Work with Religious Associations (Dini Qurumlarla \u0130\u015f \u00dczr\u0259 D\u00f6vl\u0259t Komit\u0259si \u2013 hereinafter referred to as \u201cthe Committee\u201d) before importing any religious literature. The eighth applicant applied for such permission on several occasions but the Committee banned the import of certain titles.<\/p>\n
Domestic legal proceedings challenging the Committee\u2019s orders<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. First set of proceedings (in respect of order dated 10 December 2009)<\/em><\/p>\n On an unspecified date, the third, sixth, eighth and eleventh applicants lodged a claim against the Committee with the Sabail District Court, asking the court to nullify the Committee\u2019s decision of 10 December 2009 regarding the ban on the import of certain titles of religious literature.<\/p>\n On 9 April 2010 the Sabail District Court rejected the claim. Having considered the expert opinion, the court found that the banned books contained passages exhorting religious intolerance against members of the Catholic, Protestant and Russian Orthodox churches, and that the Committee had acted within the sphere of authority vested in it by the law.<\/p>\n On an unspecified date the applicants lodged an appeal against that decision.<\/p>\n On 17 February 2011 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants\u2019 appeal. Having considered an additional expert opinion stating that the books scheduled for importation included passages exhorting religious hatred against Christians, the court found that the Committee had lawfully banned those titles and exercised its sphere of authority in accordance with Article 9 \u00a7 2 of the Convention; therefore there had been no violation of the applicants\u2019 rights.<\/p>\n On 7 July 2011 the Supreme Court dismissed a cassation appeal by the applicants and upheld the decision of the appellate court.<\/p>\n 2. Second set of proceedings (in respect of order dated 20 August 2010)<\/em><\/p>\n On an unspecified date the first, fifth, seventh, tenth and eleventh applicants lodged a claim against the Committee with the Sabail District Court, asking the court to nullify the decision of the Committee of 20 August 2010 banning the import of certain titles of religious literature.<\/p>\n On 9 April 2010 the Sabail District Court rejected the claim. Having considered an expert opinion, the court found that the banned books contained passages exhorting religious intolerance against Christians and that the Committee had acted within the sphere of authority vested in it by the law.<\/p>\n On an unspecified date the applicants lodged an appeal against that decision.<\/p>\n On 22 February 2011 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants\u2019 appeal. The court found that the Committee had lawfully banned the importation of books containing exhortations to religious intolerance and had exercised its authority in accordance with Article 9 \u00a7 2 of the Convention; therefore there had been no violation of the applicants\u2019 rights.<\/p>\n On 20 July 2011 the Supreme Court dismissed a cassation appeal by the applicants and upheld the decision of the appellate court. Having run the proportionality test under Article 9 \u00a7 2 of the Convention, the court found that in balancing freedom of conscience against the need for the protection of public order and of the rights and freedoms of others, it was the correct decision to ban the import of books exhorting religious intolerance.<\/p>\n 3. Third set of proceedings (in respect of orders dated 22 and 30 July 2010 and 13 August 2010 )<\/em><\/p>\n On an unspecified date, the second, fourth, ninth and eleventh applicants lodged a claim against the Committee with the Sabail District Court, asking the court to nullify the Committee\u2019s decisions of 22 and 30 July 2010 and 13 August 2010 banning the import of certain titles of religious literature.<\/p>\n On 6 January 2011 the Sabail District Court rejected the claim. The court found that the banned books contained passages misrepresenting sections of the Koran and that the Committee had acted within the sphere of authority vested in it by the law.<\/p>\n On an unspecified date the applicants lodged an appeal against that decision.<\/p>\n On 22 February 2011 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants\u2019 appeal.<\/p>\n On 13 September 2011 the Supreme Court dismissed a cassation appeal by the applicants and upheld the decision of the appellate court.<\/p>\n COMPLAINTS<\/strong><\/p>\n The applicants complain under Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention that the domestic authorities\u2019 ban on the import of religious literature constituted an unlawful interference with their right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression.<\/p>\n The applicants further complain under Article 14, read in conjunction with Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention, that the failure to allow the import of religious literature was motivated by discrimination on account of their religious beliefs.<\/p>\n QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. Has there been an interference with the applicants\u2019 freedom of religion, within the meaning of Article 9 \u00a7 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 9 \u00a7 2 of the Convention?<\/p>\n 2. Has there been an interference with the applicants\u2019 freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article 10 \u00a7 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 \u00a7 2 of the Convention?<\/p>\n 3. Have the applicants suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of their Convention rights on the grounds that they belonged to a religious minority, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention? In particular, have the applicants been subjected to a difference in treatment with regard to importing religious literature? If so, did that difference in treatment pursue a legitimate aim, and did it have reasonable justification?<\/p>\n Appendix<\/strong><\/p>\n Adam JAFAROV is an Azerbaijani national, resident in Jalilabad
\nValentina ADILKHANOVA is an Azerbaijani national, resident in Baku
\nEligiz ALIYEV is an Azerbaijani national, resident in Mingachevir
\nTatyana GASIMOVA is an Azerbaijani national, resident in Baku
\nAgil GULIYEV is an Azerbaijani national, resident in Baku
\nMehriban MAMMADOVA is an Azerbaijani national, resident in Baku
\nNaila RZAYEVA is an Azerbaijani national, resident in Baku
\nKhaladdin TAHIROV is an Azerbaijani national, resident in Baku
\nSanan YAGUBOV is an Azerbaijani national, resident in Baku
\nGalina YAKIMOVA is an Azerbaijani national, resident in Baku
\nRELIGIOUS COMMUNITY OF JEHOVAH\u2019S WITNESSES is a local religious community with its place of business in Baku<\/p>\n