CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 février 2023

.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 6 March 2023   FIRST SECTION Application no.   23310/18 Ali Binnat oglu INSANOV against Azerbaijan lodged on 14 May 2018 communicated on 15 February 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The present case concerns the alleged unfairness of criminal proceedings against the applicant. It also concerns an alleged restriction on the applicant’s rights for purposes other than those prescribed in the Convention. The applicant is a politician and a former Minister of Health Care. At the material time he was serving a prison sentence for several crimes (the criminal proceedings relevant to that sentence were the subject of the Court’s examination in Insanov v.   Azerbaijan (no. 16133/08, 14 March 2013)). His prison sentence for ten years and ten months was to expire on 20 October 2016. On 24 August 2016, the applicant was charged with new criminal offences for illegally obtaining and holding medicaments, including those containing psychotropic substances, and violently resisting an officer of the penal facility. The applicant was convicted on 26 April 2017 as charged and sentenced to seven years’ and five days’ imprisonment, with a prohibition to hold any position in State or self-governance bodies for three years. On 16 January 2018 the Supreme Court upheld his conviction. Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) and (d) and Article 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 of the government and to prevent him from continuing his political activity after the expiry on 20 October 2016 of the initial prison sentence. 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, were 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 search, in the course of which the medicaments allegedly obtained and held by the applicant illegally were found, conducted in accordance with the relevant domestic procedural rules?   3.     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)?   If yes, were the restrictions imposed by the State on the applicant, purportedly pursuant to Article 6 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by that provision, contrary to Article   18 of the Convention?   4.     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, the expert reports, and the applicant’s appeals and requests.