CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 mai 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } Communicated on 7 May 2020 Published on 2 June 2020   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 47000/17 Vasif Adalat oglu IBRAHIMOV against Azerbaijan lodged on 20 June 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged lack of fairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicant who was convicted for premediated destruction of property and participation in public unrest. The applicant complains that the proceedings against him lacked fairness in that he was deprived of the rights to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and to have the witnesses examined on his behalf. He further complains that the reason behind his conviction was a call he had made to a local television station which then reported it, about the incident in respect of which he was later indicted as well as several other interviews he had previously given concerning various officials. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention? In particular, had the applicant’s rights to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf been duly respected by the domestic courts? 2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, in particular his right to impart information, contrary to Article   10 of the Convention? 3.     The parties are requested to submit a copy of the programme aired around 9   a.m. on 24 January 2013 on ANS TV local television station reporting the call allegedly made by the applicant on the night of 23   January 2013.