CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 septembre 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 } .s9671CAED { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 6 September 2018   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 39466/16 Turan Mammad oglu IBRAHIMOV against Azerbaijan lodged on 20 June 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged lack of fairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicant who was convicted in summary “administrative” proceedings on charges of failure to comply with a lawful order of a police officer. He was sentenced to seven days’ administrative detention. The applicant complains that the domestic courts did not address particular complaints raised before them, failing thereby to sufficiently reason their decisions. He further complains that he was deprived of the opportunity to hire a lawyer of his own choice and was only formalistically represented by a State-funded lawyer in the hearing before the first-instance court. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair trial in the criminal proceedings against him, as required under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular did the domestic courts address all relevant complaints raised by the applicant (see Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan , no. 60259/11, §§ 83-87, 15 October 2015 and Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan , nos. 67360/11 and 2 others, §§   119 ‑ 124, 11 February 2016)? 2.     Was the applicant afforded an opportunity to defend himself through legal assistance of his own choosing, as required by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s right to be defended by a lawyer of his own choice restricted during the proceedings in the first ‑ instance court (see Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan , no. 60259/11, §§   88 ‑ 94, 15 October 2015; and Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan , nos.   67360/11 and 2 others, §§ 125-134, 11 February 2016)? The Government are requested to submit copies of the entire case file from the domestic proceedings.