CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 septembre 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 }   Communicated on 6 September 2018   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 65893/16 Seymur Mashgul oglu HAZIYEV against Azerbaijan lodged on 8 November 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the criminal conviction of a journalist for hooliganism. The applicant claims that the criminal case against him was fabricated and that he was convicted because of his journalistic activities. 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 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic courts establish the existence of all the elements of the criminal offence of which the applicant was convicted and provide reasons for their decisions? Was the applicant able to examine witnesses against him, as required by Article   6 § 3   (d) of the Convention?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention as a result of his criminal conviction? In particular, was his criminal conviction related to his journalistic activity? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2?