CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 février 2024

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } Published on 4 March 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 82482/17 Rufat SAFAROV against Azerbaijan lodged on 29 November 2017 communicated on 12 February 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The present application primarily concerns the alleged unfairness of criminal proceedings against the applicant. At the material time, the applicant was an investigator at the Zardab district prosecutor’s office. On 20 December 2015 he made a public statement criticising the government and announcing that he resigned from his position and joined the opposition. On the next day the General Prosecutor’s Office stated, inter alia , that the applicant was dismissed from the prosecutor’s office for breach of the relevant code of ethics. In January 2016 criminal case was instituted against the applicant; and he was formally arrested as a suspect. The applicant was charged with a criminal offence under Article 311.3.2 of the Criminal Code (bribery, committed repeatedly by a public official) for allegedly receiving bribes for adopting decisions not to open criminal cases on the basis of five complaints lodged by various individuals in 2014. In the beginning of September 2016, the applicant made a publication in the social media saying that he would participate in the demonstration scheduled for 11 September 2016 by the opposition political union Milli Shura, inviting people to participate in that event. On 9 September 2016 the applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to nine years of imprisonment, with prohibition to hold certain positions in the State or municipal bodies for two years. The higher-instance courts upheld the conviction. Relying on Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant complains, in particular, that his conviction was political, based on fabricated and otherwise unlawful evidence and that the criminal proceedings against him were in breach of various fair-trial guarantees, such as the right to have an effective opportunity to question witnesses against him, the right to a reasoned decision, the right to an effective opportunity to contest the evidence against him, and the right to have sufficient time to prepare his defence. Invoking Articles 10 and 18 of the Convention the applicant alleges that the proceeding against him were brought in order to punish him for his criticism of the government. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular:   (i) Was the applicant’s right to a reasoned decision respected? (ii) Was the principle of equality of arms respected? (iii) Was the applicant afforded an adequate opportunity to contest the evidence against him, and to adduce evidence in support of his line of defence and to have such evidence assessed by the court?   2.     Was the applicant able to examine witnesses against him, as required by Article   6 § 3   (d) of the Convention?   3.     Was the applicant afforded adequate time to prepare his defence, as required by Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention?   4.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article   10 §   1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   10 §   2?   5.     In the present application, does Article 18 apply in conjunction with Article 6 of the Convention (see Ilgar Mammadov v.   Azerbaijan (no. 2) , no.   919/15, § 261, 16 November 2017)? If so, were the restrictions imposed by the State on the applicant, purportedly permitted under Article 6 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by that provision, contrary to Article 18 of the Convention?   6.     Were the restrictions imposed by the State on the applicant, purportedly permitted under Article 10 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by that provision, contrary to Article 18 of the Convention?   The parties are requested to provide documentary evidence in support of their replies and submissions, including copies of the transcripts of the court hearings.