CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 octobre 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 7 November 2022   FIRST SECTION Application no. 27290/15 Abgul Neymat oglu SULEYMANOV against Azerbaijan lodged on 20 May 2015 communicated on 21 October 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The present case concerns the alleged unfairness of criminal proceedings against the applicant, who is a Muslim religious leader. It also concerns the alleged breach of the right to freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and the alleged restriction of the applicant’s rights for purposes other than those prescribed in the Convention. The applicant was convicted in 2012 for several crimes (notably, unlawfully obtaining and keeping weapons, organisation of and participation in actions to breach public order, illegally obtaining and holding drugs, obtaining and holding drugs in great amount, for purposes of sale, and incitement of national, social or religious hostility by threatening to use violence) and sentenced to eleven years’ imprisonment. On 20 November 2014 the Supreme Court upheld his conviction. Relying on Articles 6 §§ 1 and 3, 9, 10, 11 and 18 of the Convention, the applicant complains, in particular, that his conviction was based on fabricated and otherwise unlawful evidence, that the criminal proceedings against him were in breach of various fair-trial guarantees and that those proceedings were brought in order to punish him for his criticism against the government, his speech as a religious leader, and his peaceful participation in a spontaneous demonstration against prohibition of a hijab in schools. Without invoking any particular Article of the Convention, the applicant also complains that his presumption of innocence was violated on account of a statement made by the Ministry of National Security and the General Prosecutor’s Office to the media prior to the applicant’s conviction because in that statement the applicant had been called or portrayed as a criminal. 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 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s right to a reasoned decision and the principles of equality of arms and adversarial proceedings respected? Was the applicant afforded an adequate opportunity to contest the evidence against him, and to adduce evidence in support of his line of defence and to have such evidence assessed by the court?   2.     Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article   6 §   2 of the Convention, respected in the present case, in particular, in view of the statement made to the media by the Ministry of National Security and the General Prosecutor’s Office? Regarding this complaint, has the applicant complied with the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies and the six-month rule?   3.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of religion, expression, and assembly, within the meaning of Articles   9 §   1, 10 § 1 and   11 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Articles   9 §   2, 10 § 2 and 11 § 2?   4.     In the circumstances of the present case, does   Article 18 apply in conjunction with Article 6 of the Convention (see Ilgar Mammadov v.   Azerbaijan (no. 2) , no. 919/15, § 261, 16 November 2017)?   5.     Were the restrictions imposed by the State on the applicant, purportedly pursuant to Articles 6, 9, 10 and 11 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by those provisions, contrary to Article   18 of the Convention?   The parties are requested to provide documentary evidence in support of their replies and submissions, including copies of the judgments and decisions of the domestic courts, transcripts of the court hearings and the applicant’s appeals and requests.