CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 août 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 16 September 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 9893/21 Jeyhun MAMMADLI against Azerbaijan lodged on 20 January 2021 communicated on 30 August 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is an opposition activist. The present application concerns his administrative conviction for “failure to comply with a lawful order of a police officer” under Article 535.1 of the Code of Administrative Offences (CAO). According to the relevant police report available in the case file, the applicant was “invited” to a police station to write an explanatory note ( izahat ) about an allegedly insulting comment directed at police officers that he had posted under a video shared by another individual on Facebook. However, he refused to follow the police officers to the police station and thus “disobeyed their order”. By a judgment of 29 June 2020, the Zardab District Court found that the applicant had committed the administrative offence under Article 535.1 of the CAO and fined him in the amount of 200 Azerbaijani manats. By a final judgment of 4 August 2020, the Shaki Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. Relying on Articles 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?   The parties are requested to submit the original text and a translation into English or French of the applicant’s allegedly insulting comment that he had posted on Facebook which led to his administrative conviction.