CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 juillet 2023

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sD37F5C3B { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 28 August 2023   FIRST SECTION Application no. 23290/18 Etibar MAMMADOV against Azerbaijan lodged on 8 May 2018 communicated on 10 July 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the arrest and administrative conviction of the applicant for distributing brochures calling people to participate in a demonstration organised by the opposition. The applicant was arrested early on 22 September 2017 and, later that same day, convicted to fifteen days’ administrative detention under Article   535 (failure to comply with the lawful order of a police officer) of the Code of Administrative Offences. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 and Articles 10 and 18 of the Convention that his arrest and conviction was unlawful and pursued aims unrelated to the formal grounds as the purpose of his arrest and conviction was to punish him for his political activity. The applicant also complains under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 that the domestic proceedings against him were unfair in particular because: he was neither given adequate time and facilities nor provided with a lawyer of his own choice to prepare his defence; the decisions of the domestic courts lacked adequate reasoning; and the hearings were not held in public.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s detention ordered “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” (see, among other authorities, Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 67360/11 and 2 others, 11 February 2016, and Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 60259/11, 15   October 2015)?   2.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention (see Hasanov and Majidli v. Azerbaijan , nos. 9626/14 and   9717/14, 7 October 2021; Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan , nos.   67360/11 and 2 others, 11 February 2016; and Gafgaz Mammadov v.   Azerbaijan , no.   60259/11, 15 October 2015)? In particular: (a)     was the applicant afforded adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence and the opportunity to defend himself through a lawyer of his own choice? (b)     was the applicant’s right to a reasoned decision respected? (c)     was a public hearing held in the present case, as required by Article   6 § 1 of the Convention?   3.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, in particular his right to impart information and ideas, within the meaning of Article   10 §   1 of the Convention (see Hasanov and Majidli v.   Azerbaijan , nos. 9626/14 and 9717/14, 7 October 2021)? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   10 §   2?   4.     Were the restrictions imposed by the State in the present case, purportedly pursuant to Article 10 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by that provision, contrary to Article   18 of the Convention (see Ibrahimov and Mammadov v. Azerbaijan , nos. 63571/16 and   5 others, 13 February 2020, and Miroslava Todorova v. Bulgaria , no.40072/13, 19 October 2021)?   The parties are requested to submit copies of all documents relating to the proceedings before the domestic courts, including the applicant’s appeal, and the transcripts of the hearings.