CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 mai 2022

.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 } Published on 23 May 2022   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 8826/20 Fariz Mubariz oglu NAMAZLI against Azerbaijan lodged on 30 January 2020 communicated on 3 May 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant, who is a lawyer, complains of alleged interference by the prison administration with his right to respect for his private life and correspondence. The applicant complained in the domestic proceedings that the prison administration had unlawfully subjected his documents to an inspection and seized a statement given to him by his client following the meeting that he had had with that client in prison. The domestic courts refused to examine the applicant’s complaints on the merits on the grounds that he had failed to submit the relevant evidence in support of his allegations. Relying on Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention, the applicant argues that the inspection of his documents and the seizure of his client’s statement by the prison administration, as well as the domestic courts’ refusal to examine on the merits his complaints in that connection, violated his Convention rights. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life and correspondence, 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?   2.     As regards the applicant’s complaint that the domestic courts refused to examine his claims on the merits, does it fall to be examined as an issue of access to court for the determination of civil rights and obligations (Article   6 §   1 of the Convention) or as an issue of alleged lack of effective remedies (Article 13 in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention)?   3.     Did the applicant have access to a court for the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?   4.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 8, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?