CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 juin 2019

.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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { 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 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 13 June 2019   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 62383/17 Georgi Nikolaev NIKOLOV against Azerbaijan and 7 other applications (see list appended) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications mainly concern the travel bans imposed by the domestic authorities on the applicants who were prevented from leaving Azerbaijan. Some applicants also raise complaints under Articles 5, 8, 10 and 18 of the Convention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES COMMON QUESTIONS 1.     Was any restriction placed on the applicants’ freedom to leave the territory of the respondent State, as guaranteed by Article 2 § 2 of Protocol   No. 4 to the Convention? If so, was that restriction in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 2 § 3 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention?   2.     Did the applicants, except the applicant in application no. 50612/18, have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, as required by Article   13 of the Convention? CASE SPECIFIC QUESTIONs IN RESPECT OF APPLICATIONs nos.   71401/17 and 72002/17 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ 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 of the Convention?   2.     Were the restrictions imposed by the State in the present cases, purportedly pursuant to Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by that provision, contrary to Article 18 of the Convention? CASE SPECIFIC QUESTION IN RESPECT OF APPLICATION NO.   1395/18 Were the restrictions imposed by the State in the present case, purportedly pursuant to Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by that provision, contrary to Article 18 of the Convention? CASE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS IN RESPECT OF APPLICATION NO.   50612/18 1.     Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, were the applicant’s arrest and detention during approximatively seven hours on 22 June 2017 at the Gazakh District Police Office in compliance with Article 5 § 1 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? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention? CASE SPECIFIC QUESTIONs IN RESPECT OF APPLICATIONs NOS.   22365/18 and 53173/18 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, as a result of the travel ban imposed on them? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ 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 of the Convention?   3.     Were the restrictions imposed by the State in the present cases, purportedly pursuant to Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by that provision, contrary to Article 18 of the Convention?   APPENDIX No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Represented by 1. 62383/17 21/08/2017 Georgi Nikolaev NIKOLOV 20/04/1960 Varna   2. 71401/17 31/08/2017 Mehman Rafig oglu HUSEYNOV 24/11/1989 Baku Elchin SADIGOV Zibeyda SADIGOVA 3. 72002/17 27/09/2017 Tural Rasim oglu ASADOV 22/01/1993 Baku Zibeyda SADIGOVA 4. 1395/18 19/12/2017 Salima Rovshan gizi JALILOVA 12/05/1994 Baku Fariz NAMAZLI 5. 6508/18 26/12/2017 Sevinj Vagif gizi ABBASOVA 05/07/1989 Baku Khalid BAGIROV Ulkar ALIYEVA 6. 22365/18 09/05/2018 Intigam Kamil oglu ALIYEV 30/11/1962 Absheron Jessica GAVRON Philip LEACH Ramute REMEZAITE 7. 50612/18 25/10/2018 Kamran Eldeniz oglu MAHMUDOV 16/01/1982 Baku Alinda VERMEER Khalid AGALIYEV 8. 53173/18 26/10/2018 Rasim Garakishi oglu NASIROV 18/02/1960 Baku Zibeyda SADIGOVA