CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 avril 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 29 April 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 8928/19 Vugar RZALI against Azerbaijan lodged on 17 January 2019 communicated on 10 April 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s administrative detention for “failure to comply with a lawful order of a police officer” under Article 535.1 of the Code on Administrative Offences. According to the relevant police report, the applicant had been “invited” to a police station in relation to posts he had shared on Facebook allegedly insulting high ‑ ranking police officers. However, he had refused to follow the police officers to the police station and thus “disobeyed their order”. No copies of the impugned posts are available in the case file. By a judgment of 12 July 2018, the Jalilabad District Court found that the applicant had committed the administrative offence under Article 535.1 of the CAO and sentenced him to twenty days’ administrative detention. By a final judgment of 23 July 2018, the Shirvan Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. Relying on Articles 5, 6 and 10 of the Convention, the applicant complains of the alleged unfairness of the domestic proceedings and of a violation of his right to freedom of expression.     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, was the applicant’s right to a reasoned decision respected?   2.     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 the interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   10 §   2 in pursuit of a legitimate aim? Were the sanctions imposed on the applicant proportionate to the aims pursued?   The parties are requested to submit the copies in English or French of the applicant’s allegedly insulting Facebook posts which led to his administrative detention.