CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 septembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 6 October 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 47984/19 Bakhtiyar BAGIROV against Azerbaijan lodged on 16 August 2019 communicated on 19 September 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a member of the Muslim Unity movement, and the application concerns his administrative detention and conviction for minor hooliganism under Article 510 of the Code of Administrative Offences. According to the applicant, he published a video on a social network on 5   February 2019, calling on international and local NGOs to shed light on the alleged ill-treatment of certain members of the movement in a penal facility where they were serving their sentence. The applicant alleges that he was arrested on 6 February 2019 by plain-clothed police officers and unlawfully detained in the Organised Crime Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs until 11 February 2019, when he was brought before the court in connection with the charge of an administrative offence. By a judgment of 11 February 2019, the Narimanov District Court, referring to an administrative offence report drawn up by the police in respect of the applicant on 9 February 2019 and other evidence in the case file, convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to fifteen days’ administrative detention. The court held that the applicant had committed minor hooliganism by swearing out loud in the street. The applicant’s appeal was dismissed by the appellate court on 22 February 2019. Relying on Articles 5, 6, 10 and 18 of the Convention, the applicant complains of his allegedly unlawful and unrecorded arrest and detention, of unfairness of the domestic proceedings and of a violation of his freedom of expression. He also complains that his arrest and conviction pursued ulterior purposes of preventing his political activity and to silence him. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, did the deprivation of liberty during the period between 6 and 11 February 2019 fall within sub-paragraphs of this provision (see Nagiyev v. Azerbaijan , no. 16499/09, §§ 54-64, 23 April 2015, and Nasirov and Others v. Azerbaijan , no. 58717/10, §§ 46-52, 20 February 2020)?   2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective procedure by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his detention, as required by Article   5 §   4 of the Convention (see Ibrahimov and Mammadov v.   Azerbaijan, nos.   63571/16 and 5 others, §§ 138-40, 13 February 2020)?   3.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, 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 Huseynli and Others v.   Azerbaijan , nos.   67360/11 and 2 others, §§ 119-23, 11 February 2016)?   4.     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 ( see Ibrahimov and Mammadov , cited above, §§ 170-74)?   5.     Were the restrictions imposed by the State in the applicant’s case, purportedly pursuant to Articles 5, 6 and 10 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by these provisions, contrary to Article   18 of the Convention (see Ukraine v. Russia ( re Crimea ) [GC], nos. 20958/14 and 38334/18, §§ 1341 et seq., 25 June 2024)?   The parties are requested to submit copies of all documents relating to the administrative proceedings, which have not yet been submitted (the administrative-offence report, witness statements and so on).