CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 avril 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s3B53EBCA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:7pt }   Published on 24 April 2023   FIRST SECTION Application no. 24127/17 Mammad Aziz oglu IBRAHIM against Azerbaijan lodged on 13 March 2017 communicated on 3 April 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application arises from criminal proceedings against the applicant, an opposition-party member. By a final judgment of 28 September 2016, the Supreme Court convicted the applicant under Article 221.2.2 of the Criminal Code (hooliganism committed by resisting a public official or another person attempting to prevent it) and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that his right to a reasoned judgment and the principles of equality of arms and adversarial proceedings were breached. In particular, he alleges that all of the defence’s objections and procedural requests were rejected, and the defence was not given a reasonable opportunity to present its case under conditions which were equal   vis-à-vis   the prosecution.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular: (a) was the applicant’s right to a reasoned judgment and the principles of equality of arms and adversarial proceedings respected? (b) 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 courts (see Huseyn and Others v.   Azerbaijan , nos. 35485/05 and 3 others, §§ 198-203, 26 July 2011, and Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan (no. 2) , no. 919/15, §§ 205-10, 16   November 2017)?