CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 juin 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 15 July 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 12514/21 Farrukh ALIYEV against Azerbaijan lodged on 5 February 2021 communicated on 28 June 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s conviction for breach of lockdown rules relating to the Covid-19 pandemic under Article 211 of the Code of Administrative Offences (administrative detention of one month) and the seizure of his two mobile phones by the prosecuting authorities for an indefinite period of time in the absence of any official decision. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the domestic courts failed to provide reasons for their decisions and that he was not provided with free legal assistance after his arrest and in the proceedings before the first-instance court. The applicant also complains that the seizure of his mobile phones by the prosecuting authorities following his arrest constituted a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.   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 judgment respected?   2.     Was the applicant afforded free legal assistance, within the meaning of Article   6 §   3   (c) of the Convention?   3.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention on account of the seizure of his mobile phones by the prosecuting authorities? If   so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?