CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 mai 2022

.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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 23 May 2022   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 26896/18 Sardar Akif oglu BABAYEV against Azerbaijan lodged on 19 May 2018 communicated on 3 May 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the criminal conviction of the applicant, an Azerbaijani citizen who obtained religious education in Iran, for preaching in a mosque. The domestic courts found him guilty under Article 168-1.3.1 (breach of the requirements for conducting religious propaganda, rites and rituals) of the Criminal Code, which criminalised at the material time the conduct of Islamic religious rites and rituals by citizens of the Republic of Azerbaijan who obtained religious education abroad, and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment. The applicant complains under Articles 9 and 14 of the Convention that his criminal conviction amounted to an unlawful and unjustified interference with his right to freedom of religion and was discriminatory. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of religion, within the meaning of Article   9 §   1 of the Convention on account of his criminal conviction? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   9 §   2?   2.     Has the applicant been subjected to a difference in treatment in enjoyment of his rights under Article 9 of the Convention, contrary to Article   14 of the Convention? If so, did that difference in treatment pursue a legitimate aim, and did it have a reasonable justification?