CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 avril 2019

.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 }   Communicated on 3 April 2019   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 7477/15 Orkhan ALIYEV against Azerbaijan lodged on 24 January 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged lack of fairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicant who was convicted of extortion of property, abuse of authority and high treason and sentenced to twelve years’ imprisonment. The applicant complains that the domestic courts unreasonably restricted his entitlement to a public hearing. The applicant further complains that his right to a fair trial was breached as a result of his defence counsel’s absence from a hearing before the Supreme Court. In particular, he alleges that his lawyer was not informed about the date of the hearing and his own participation was not ensured. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Was the applicant afforded a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention? In particular: (a)     Did the exclusion of the public in the present case pursue one of the legitimate aims enumerated in the second sentence of Article 6 § 1 and was it “strictly necessary” within the meaning of this provision? (b)     Was the applicant and/or his lawyer given an opportunity to be present at hearings before the Supreme Court? If not, were the proceedings before the Supreme Court in the applicant’s case compatible with the requirements of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention?