CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 janvier 2026

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s88830249 { width:100%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sED5DCFDE { width:7.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sA7CB8916 { width:21.46%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s8766388D { width:27.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sCFC02D24 { width:18.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2A1773AF { width:24.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE7D92C81 { width:7.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB694A584 { width:21.46%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD4FE34F5 { width:27.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sEA94F144 { width:18.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFE87FB53 { width:24.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 16 February 2026   THIRD SECTION Application no. 13259/19 Nizami GANIYEV and Others against Azerbaijan lodged on 18 February 2019 communicated on 28 January 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application primarily concerns the alleged unfairness of criminal proceedings against the applicants. On 12 January 2016 a demonstration was held in front of the local executive authority in Siyazan district against raising of the price for flour and against unemployment and poverty. According to the applicants, the demonstration was peaceful and after the head of the executive authority promised a meeting the next day with the MP representing the district, the participants dispersed. However, in the evening of 12 January 2016 many participants were arrested. Therefore, the next day another demonstration was organised to demand release of those arrested. The police proceeded to disperse that demonstration by using pepper gas bombs and rubber bullets. Fifty-five participants were arrested, eleven of whom were subjected to criminal prosecution and forty-four were charged and convicted for administrative offences. The applicants were among those who had participated in the above ‑ mentioned demonstrations. They were arrested on 13-14 January 2016. On unspecified dates search-and-seizure measures were carried out in the first, second and third applicants’ homes. According to the official records, drugs and/or bullets were found during these measures and seized. By a judgment of 28 March 2017 of the Guba District Court, the applicants were convicted under Articles 186.2.2 (deliberate destruction of property) (all applicants), 228.1 (possession of firearms) (the first, second and third applicants), 233 (organisation of or participation in mass disorder) (all applicants), 234.1 (possession of drugs) (the first and second applicants) and 315.2 (violence against a representative of authorities) (all applicants) of the Criminal Code. The applicants were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. By a judgment of 27 December 2017 of the Sumgayit Court of Appeal, their sentences were reduced (the appellate court proceedings were held without “judicial investigation”). The Supreme Court, by a decision of 17 July 2018, upheld the appellate court’s judgment (the Supreme Court’s decision was served on the applicants on 18 August 2018). Invoking Articles 8 and 11 of the Convention and Article 18 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Articles 6, 8 and 11, the applicants complain that their convictions were based on fabricated and otherwise unlawful evidence (in particular, on false self-incriminating statements given under duress, and on evidence – such as bullets and drugs – planted in their homes as a result of unlawfully conducted search-and-seizure measures), constituted unlawful interference with their freedom of peaceful assembly, and were aimed at creating a chilling effect of discouraging people from organising and participating in peaceful demonstrations against the authorities. Invoking Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention, the applicants complain that the criminal proceedings against them were in breach of various fair-trial guarantees, in particular of their right to effective legal assistance. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicants’ right to a reasoned decision and the principles of equality of arms and adversarial proceedings respected? Were the applicants afforded an adequate opportunity to contest the evidence against them, and to adduce evidence in support of their line of defence and to have such evidence assessed by the court?   2.     Was the applicants’ right to effective legal assistance at the pre-trial stage of the proceedings respected? Were the applicants able to defend themselves through legal assistance of their own choosing, as required by Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention?   3.     Has there been a violation of the first, second and third applicants’ right to respect for their homes, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, on account of the search-and-seizure measures conducted during the criminal proceedings against them?   4.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ freedom of assembly, within the meaning of Article 11 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   11 § 2?   5.     Has there been a breach of Article 18 taken in conjunction with Article   11 of the Convention? Were the restrictions imposed by the State on the applicants, purportedly for a legitimate aim pursuant to Article 11 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by that provision, contrary to Article 18 of the Convention?   The parties are requested to provide documentary evidence in support of their replies and submissions, including copies of the judgments and decisions of the domestic courts, transcripts of the court hearings and the applicants’ appeals and requests.     APPENDIX No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Nizami Maharram oglu GANIYEV 1966 Azerbaijani Baku 2 Zaur Ilham oglu SHAKAROV 1976 Azerbaijani Baku 3. Muslum Agamali oglu AZIMOV 1983 Azerbaijani Baku 4. Joshgun Muslum oglu BAGISHOV 1993 Azerbaijani Baku