CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 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 10 September 2018   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 11258/12 Alakbar Heydar oglu ISMAYILOV against Azerbaijan lodged on 9 February 2012 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns seizure of the applicant’s letters addressed to various international organisations and several newspapers, and his books during a search carried out in his cell in prison. The applicant brought proceedings against the prison authorities before the first-instance court. However, the court held that his complaint should be examined not by civil, but by administrative courts. By a final decision of 10 August 2011 the Baku Court of Appeal refused to examine the applicant’s complaint on the merits on the ground that the prison authorities were not administrative bodies under the domestic law. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the domestic courts’ decisions in civil and administrative proceedings, was the applicant denied the right of   access to court, in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2?   3.     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?   4.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaints, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?   5.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1?