CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 novembre 2021

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt }   Published on 22 November 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 17359/16 Mammad Aziz oglu IBRAHIM against Azerbaijan lodged on 16 March 2016 communicated on 2 November 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged unlawful detention of the applicant on suspicion of committing the criminal offence of hooliganism. The applicant was initially charged under Article 221.1 (hooliganism) and later under Article 221.2.2 (hooliganism committed by resisting a public official or another person) of the Criminal Code. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that there had been no reasonable suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence and that the deprivation of his liberty had not been lawful. In particular, he argued that he had been detained in excess of the maximum forty-eight-hour period permitted by domestic law prior to being brought before a judge. He further argued that the initial order on his remand in custody was contrary to the requirements of the domestic law, since the preventive measure of remand in custody can be imposed only with regard to a person who is charged with an offence which carries a punishment of more than two years’ imprisonment. However, he was initially charged under Article 221.1 of the Criminal Code according to which he was punishable up to one year’s imprisonment.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? Was the applicant’s detention compatible with Article 5 §   1 (c) in terms of being justified and based on a reasonable suspicion? Was the applicant’s detention in compliance with domestic procedural rules? In particular, was the applicant detained in excess of the maximum forty ‑ eight hour period permitted by the domestic law prior to being brought before a judge after his arrest on 30 September 2015? Was the imposition of the preventive measure of remand in custody on the applicant on 3 October 2015 in compliance with the domestic law in view of the fact that at that time he was not charged with a criminal offence carrying a punishment of more than two years’ imprisonment?