CASSATION COMPLAINT TO BE FILED AGAINST APPELLATE COURT DECISION ON EMIN HUSEYNOV’S LAWSUIT

September 2nd, 2008

Today in the Appellate Court, under the chairmanship of Judge Gunduz Guliyev, a hearing took place on the lawsuit of the Institute for Reporters’ Freedom and Safety Chairman Emin Huseynov against the decision of the Nasimi District Court.

Recall that Emin Huseynov filed a lawsuit against the Ministry of Interior, Nasimi District Police Department, and Nasimi District Police Department's Unit #22 about police pressure, however the lawsuit was returned unconsidered based on a decision issued by Nasimi District Court Judge Ikram Shirinov. It was noted in the decision that "the lawsuit is to be considered as a regular case, not a special case. Each of the defendants are asked to pay 50,000 AZN (total 150, 000 AZN) AZN in compensation. This characteristic of the lawsuit must be considered through general consideration, not special."

During the hearing, Huseynov’s representative, lawyer Elchin Sadigov, spoke and called the Nasimi District Court decision illegal and said that filing the lawsuit in the special order was legal. According to Sadigov, in the Civil Procedural Code article 286.5 it is stated that demands for property may be reflected in the lawsuit filed as a special case. “Our demand for 150, 000 AZN compensation in our lawsuit is our property demand,” noted Sadigov.

Then the judge announced a short break (the reason for the break was not clear). After the break the judge said that defendant has the obligation to proof during special consideration of the lawsuit, and therefore the lawsuit should be filed in general order. E.Sadigov, citing Article 286.5, emphasized that according to legislation it is possible to reflect property demands in lawsuits filed in special order.

The judge, returning from deliberation, announced the decision. According to the decision, the complaint was not fulfilled and the decision of Nasimi district court was upheld. A cassation complaint will be filed against this decision.

*Although IRFS appealed to the judge in written form to take pictures and film in the court hall, this was not allowed.