CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 octobre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } Communicated on 3 October 2019   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 71411/17 Rahim Shahkamal oglu VALIYEV against Azerbaijan lodged on 12 September 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the search of the flat of the applicant, who was a civil society activist, by the police officers and seizure of his laptop and mobile phone which were returned to him later, and alleged unlawfulness of the judicial review proceedings concerning the search. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of equality of arms respected? Was the applicant’s right to a reasoned decision respected?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life and home, as a result of the search carried out by the national authorities, 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, on account of his criticising posts on social networks? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   10 §   2?   4.     Were the restrictions imposed by the State in the present case, purportedly pursuant to Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by those provisions, contrary to Article   18 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, on account of the seizure of his laptop and mobile phone? If so, was that interference 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 (see   Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy ,   [GC], no.   22774/93 , § 59, ECHR 1999-V)?