CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 juillet 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 5 July 2018   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 60090/15 ADIL ISMAYILOV VE PARTNYORLARI against Azerbaijan lodged on 19 November 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the freezing of bank accounts of the applicant company, which was a law firm, by the domestic authorities within the framework of the criminal proceedings concerning the alleged unlawful activities of a number of non-governmental organisations. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicant company’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1, on account of the freezing of its bank accounts? If so, was that interference lawful and necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest? In particular, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant company (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V)?