CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 mars 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 31 March 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 40335/23 Giyas IBRAHIMOV against Azerbaijan lodged on 23 October 2023 communicated on 12 March 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns two separate sets of administrative proceedings against the applicant, an opposition activist. According to the material available in the case file, on 22 June 2022 the applicant published a post on his Facebook account using profane language in respect of the police who had allegedly committed violence against protestors in one of the country’s regions. The applicant alleges that a few hours after he had published the post, some plain-clothes police officers arrested him and brought him to a police station where an administrative-offence report was drawn up under Article 535 (failure to comply with a lawful order of a police officer) of the Code on Administrative Offences (“the CAO”). On the same day, the Ministry of Digital Development and Transport (“the Ministry”) issued an administrative-offence report in respect of the applicant under Article 388-1 (dissemination on the internet of information restricted by law) of the CAO. By a judgment of 22 June 2023 the Nizami District Court, referring to the police report, convicted the applicant under Article 535 of the CAO and sentenced him to one month’s administrative detention. In his appeal, the applicant argued that in reality he had been arrested for his Facebook post. By a final decision of 25 June 2023, the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s judgment. In the framework of the second set of proceedings initiated on the basis of the report issued by the Ministry, on 24 June 2023 the Nizami District Court found that the applicant had disseminated prohibited information on a social network and convicted him of the offence under Article 388-1 of the CAO and sentenced him to one month’s administrative detention. On 25 June 2023 the Baku 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 first set of proceedings and 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 charge against him in the first set of the proceedings, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, were the principle of equality of arms and the applicant’s right to a reasoned decision respected (see Hasanov and Majidli v. Azerbaijan, nos. 9626/14 and 9717/14, 7 October 2021)?   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 that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   10 §   2? Was the sanction imposed on the applicant proportionate to the aims pursued (see Mahmudov and Agazade v. Azerbaijan , no.   35877/04, 18   December 2008)?   The parties are requested to submit copies of all documents relating to the administrative proceedings, which are not already in the case file, and the original text and a translation into English or French of the post which the applicant published on Facebook and which led to his administrative conviction.