CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 juillet 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 } .s3B53EBCA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:7pt } .sEFDF4C7C { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s67F7AEDB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Published on 22 July 2024   FIRST SECTION Applications nos. 21262/22 and 6979/23 Elnur MAMMADOV against Azerbaijan and Ayven SHAMURADOV against Azerbaijan lodged on 13 April 2022 and 2 February 2023 respectively communicated on 2 July 2024   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The present applications concern the restrictions imposed by the prosecuting authorities on the applicants’ right to visits by, and telephone conversations with, their family members and the outside world, while detained in the pre-trial detention facility. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicants complain that the restrictions imposed on them were unjustified and disproportionate.       QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life or correspondence, within the meaning of Article 8 §   1 of the Convention, on account of the restrictions placed on their rights by the corresponding decisions of the prosecuting authorities? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 §   2 (see Mirgadirov v. Azerbaijan and Turkey , no.   62775/14, §§ 115-25, 17 September 2020; Bogusław Krawczak v.   Poland , no. 24205/06, §   112, 31 May 2011; and   Andrey Smirnov v.   Russia , no. 43149/10, §   38, 13 February 2018)?