CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 octobre 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 }   Communicated on 11 October 2019   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 7668/15 INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH AND EXCHANGE COUNCIL against Azerbaijan lodged on 30 December 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant organization is the representative office in Azerbaijan of IREX, an international humanitarian organization. The application concerns the search of its office and seizure of all documents and computers by the national authorities. The applicant organization also complains about the freezing order of its bank account in the framework of criminal proceedings initiated against several local NGOs and representative offices of international organizations. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant organization have a fair hearing in the determination of its civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, did the applicant organization have access to court in conformity with Article 6 with regard to the challenge of the freezing order? Was the applicant organization duly informed of the freezing order?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant organization’s right to respect for its home, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention, as a result of the search of its office by the national authorities? 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 organization’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1, on account of the seizure of its documents and computers? If so, was that interference lawful and 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 organization (see   Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy ,   [GC], no.   22774/93 , § 59, ECHR 1999-V)?   4.     Has there been an interference with the applicant organization’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, on account of the freezing of its bank accounts? If so, was that interference lawful and 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 organization (see   Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy ,   [GC], no.   22774/93 , § 59, ECHR 1999-V)?   5.     Were the restrictions imposed by the State in the present case, purportedly pursuant to Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by those provisions, contrary to Article   18 of the Convention?