CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 octobre 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 24 October 2018   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 30352/11 Akshin Gara oglu GARAYEV against Azerbaijan lodged on 2 May 2011 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the continued retention for more than thirteen years of twenty-eight gas turbines, owned by a private company solely owned by the applicant, as physical evidence within the framework of criminal proceedings. The applicant purchased the gas turbines from another private company in 1997. The criminal proceedings concerned the alleged crime of embezzlement of the gas turbines in question in 1992 and were suspended in 1997 and later again in 2002 on the ground that the identity of the perpetrator(s) of the alleged crime could not be established. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 to the Convention? If so, was it lawful and proportionate to the aims under the second paragraph of that provision? In particular, has the continued retention of the applicant’s possessions been based on relevant and sufficient reasons and has a fair balance been struck between the demands of the general interest and the requirement of the protection of the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, as required by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?   2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?   3.     What is the current status of the criminal proceedings in question? If they are still pending, is there any prescription period under the law, after expiration of which the criminal proceedings in question are to be terminated despite the authorities’ inability to establish the identity of the perpetrator(s) of the alleged crime?