CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 mars 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 11 April 2023   FIRST SECTION Application no. 30916/19 Murad Bayram oglu MURADOV against Azerbaijan lodged on 29 May 2019 communicated on 20 March 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s arrest during a demonstration and his subsequent administrative conviction for failure to comply with a lawful order given by a police officer, under Article 535 of the Code of Administrative Offences. The domestic courts sentenced him to ten days’ administrative detention. The applicant complains under Articles 6 and 11 of the Convention that the domestic courts failed to provide reasons for their decisions and that his administrative conviction amounted to an unlawful and unjustified interference with his right to freedom of assembly. The applicant also complains that the belated examination of his appeal by the Baku Court of Appeal, which took place after he had served his ten days’ administrative detention, constituted a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention. 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 judgment respected?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of peaceful assembly, within the meaning of Article 11 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 11 § 2?   3.     Was the applicant afforded the right of appeal envisaged by Article   2 §   1 of Protocol No.   7? In particular, did the examination of the applicant’s appeal on 29 January 2019, after he had served his sentence of administrative detention, disclose a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention in the context of the immediate execution of the sentence of administrative detention (compare Shvydka v. Ukraine , no. 17888/12, §§ 48-55, 30 October 2014, and Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia , nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§   179-191, 10 April 2018)?