CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 mai 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 29 May 2018   FIFTH SECTION Applications nos. 74288/14 and 64568/16 DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS RESOURCE CENTRE against Azerbaijan and MUSTAFAYEV and DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS RESOURCE CENTER against Azerbaijan lodged on 26 November 2014 and 31 October 2016 respectively SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASEs The applications concern the restrictions imposed on the bank accounts of the applicants by the domestic authorities. Application no. 64568/16 also concerns the restriction imposed on the freedom of movement of the first applicant in that application and the alleged hindrance with the effective exercise of his right of individual application as a result of the impossibility to use the free legal aid provided by the Council of Europe. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, on account of the freezing of their bank accounts? If so, was that interference lawful and necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest? In particular, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants (see Immobiliare   Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V)?   3.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints concerning the freezing of their bank accounts, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?   4.     Has there been a violation of the right to freedom of association of the applicant in application no. 74288/14, contrary to Article   11 of the Convention?   5.     Was any restriction placed on the freedom of movement of the first applicant in application no. 64568/16, as guaranteed by Article 2 § 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention? If so, was that restriction in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 2 § 3 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention?   6.     Were the restrictions imposed by the State in the present case, purportedly pursuant to Article 11 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by those provisions, contrary to Article 18 of the Convention?   7.     Has there been any hindrance by the State in the present case with the effective exercise of the right of application of the first applicant in application no. 64568/16, ensured by Article 34 of the Convention?   8.     The parties are requested to submit copies of all documents relating to the domestic proceedings concerning the freezing of bank accounts and the restriction on the freedom of movement.