CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 mai 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } Communicated on 11 May 2020 Published on 2 June 2020   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 34987/17 Vugar Sabir oglu ALIYEV against Azerbaijan lodged on 8 May 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the criminal conviction of the applicant, who was a local political activist, for illegal possession of weapons. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention about the lack of reasoning in the domestic courts’ decisions and his and his lawyer’s absence at the hearing before the Supreme Court. He further complains under Article 8 of the Convention about the unlawfulness of the search of his home. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic courts establish the existence of all the elements of the criminal offences of which the applicant was convicted and provide reasons for their decisions? Was the applicant’s conviction based on unlawfully obtained evidence? 2.     Was the applicant’s absence from the hearing held before the Supreme Court in compliance with the requirements under Article   6 §§   1 and   3 (c) of the Convention? 3.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?