CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 octobre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } Communicated on 3 October 2019   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 23503/15 INSTITUTE FOR REPORTERS FREEDOM AND SAFETY PUBLIC UNION against Azerbaijan lodged on 7 May 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the search of an NGO’s premises specialising in the protection of journalists’ rights. The authorities allegedly seized large amount of documents, as well as computers, discs, USB flash drivers, and the NGO’s seal and stamp. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant organisation’s right to respect for its home, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention, as a result of the search carried out by the national authorities? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant organisation’s freedom of association, within the meaning of Article   11 §   1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   11 § 2?   3.     Has there been an interference with the applicant organisation’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1? 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 applicant organisation (see   Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy ,   [GC], no.   22774/93 , § 59, ECHR 1999-V)?   4.     Were the restrictions imposed by the State in the present case, purportedly pursuant to Articles 8 and 11 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by those provisions, contrary to Article   18 of the Convention?