CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 janvier 2025

.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 } Published on 10 February 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 51324/16 Intigam ALIYEV against Azerbaijan lodged on 24 August 2016 communicated on 20 January 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a human-rights lawyer and civil-society activist and has represented applicants before the Court in many cases. He was the chairman of the Legal Education Society, a non-governmental organisation specialising in legal education, and has collaborated with various international organisations on human-rights-related projects. In August 2014 the applicant was arrested and charged under Articles   192.2.2 (illegal entrepreneurship), 213.1 (large ‑ scale tax evasion) and 308.2 (aggravated abuse of power) of the Criminal Code. Subsequently, in addition to the original charges, he was further charged under Articles   179.3.2 (high-level embezzlement) and 313 (forgery by an official) of the Criminal Code. The acts imputed to the applicant under Article 213.1 of the Criminal Code were re-qualified under Article 213.2.2 (tax evasion on a very large scale) of the Criminal Code.   The issues relating to the applicant’s pre-trial detention and other matters arising during the pre-trial stage of the criminal proceedings were the subject of the Court’s examination in Aliyev v.   Azerbaijan (nos. 68762/14 and 71200/14, September 2018), in which the Court found, inter alia , violations of Articles 3, 5 §§ 1 and 4, and 8 of the Convention and Article 18 taken in conjunction with Articles 5 and 8 of the Convention. In the framework of the same criminal proceedings, on 22 April 2015 the Baku Court of Serious Crimes convicted the applicant as charged under Articles 179.3.2, 192.2.2, 213.2.2, 308.2 and 313 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to seven and a half years’ imprisonment and a three years’ ban on holding office in State and local self-administration authorities. Following a series of appeals, on 24 February 2016 the Supreme Court upheld his conviction and sentence. Following an application by   the Prosecutor General for supervisory review on the ground of the severity of the sentence imposed on the applicant, on 28 March 2016 the Plenum of the Supreme Court reduced the applicant’s sentence to five years’ imprisonment suspended on probation. He was released from detention. The applicant complains under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b), (c) and (d) of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against him were not compliant with a number of fair-trial guarantees. He also complains under Article 7 of the Convention that the acts for which he was convicted did not constitute a criminal offence under the domestic law at the time they were committed. Lastly, he complains under Article 18 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 6 of the Convention that the actual purpose of the criminal proceedings against him was to punish him for his work in the area of human rights as well as to prevent him from continuing this work. 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 and 3 (b), (c) and (d) of the Convention? In particular, were the applicant’s right to a reasoned decision and the principles of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms respected? Was the applicant afforded adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence and was he able to defend himself effectively through legal assistance of his own choosing? 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.     Did the acts or omissions of which the applicant was convicted constitute a criminal offence under national law at the time when they were committed, as envisaged by Article   7 of the Convention?   3.     Were the restrictions imposed by the State in the present case, 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?   In support of their submissions, the parties are requested to provide copies of the relevant documentary evidence which are not currently in the case file, including, in particular, a full copy of the applicant’s appeal of 7 May 2015 (lodged with the Baku Court of Appeal against the first-instance court’s judgment), as well as copies of witness statements, transcripts of court hearings, the applicants’ requests and decisions of the courts concerning those requests, expert reports and others.