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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } Published on 7 November 2022   FIRST SECTION Application no. 35079/16 Taleh Kamil oglu BAGIROV against Azerbaijan lodged on 10 June 2016 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 religious leader. It also concerns the alleged breach of the right to freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and the alleged restriction of the applicant’s rights for purposes other than those prescribed in the Convention. The applicant was convicted in 2013 for illegally obtaining and holding drugs and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. On 10 December 2015 the Supreme Court upheld his conviction. Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (d) and Articles 9, 10 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 various governmental policies, including against a prohibition of a hijab in schools, and his speech as a religious leader. The applicant also complains under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention that his presumption of innocence was violated on account of a statement made by the Ministry of Internal Affairs 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.     Has there been a public hearing in the present case, as required by Article   6 § 1 of the Convention?   3.     Was the applicant’s right to legal assistance at the pre-trial stage of the proceedings respected?   4.     Was the applicant able to defend himself through legal assistance of his own choosing, as required by Article   6 §   3   (c) of the Convention?   5.     Was the applicant afforded an adequate opportunity to communicate confidentially with his lawyer during the trial?   6.     Was the applicant properly notified about the date and time of the Supreme Court’s hearing?   7.     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 Internal Affairs 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? 8.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of religion and expression, within the meaning of Articles   9 §   1 and 10 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Articles   9 §   2 and 10 § 2?   9.     Were the restrictions imposed by the State on the applicant, purportedly pursuant to Articles 9 and 10 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.