CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 février 2024

.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 19 February 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 25643/16 AZERBAIJANI LAWYERS ASSOCIATION and Annagi HAJIBEYLI against Azerbaijan lodged on 27 April 2016 communicated on 1 February 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the imposition of a tax sanction, following an on-site tax inspection, on the applicant association, a non-governmental organisation specialising in legal education and promotion of human rights, of which the applicant was the founder and chairman. The applicant association complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the domestic proceedings were unfair since the domestic courts failed to examine the relevant evidence adduced by it and substantiate their decisions. The applicants also complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the tax sanction in the amount of 4,597.28 Azerbaijani manats (approximately 4,500 euros at the material time) amounted to a disproportionate interference with their property rights. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was Article 6 of the Convention applicable under its criminal limb to the tax proceedings in the present case?   2.     If so, did the applicant association have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against it, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant association’s right to a reasoned judgment respected?   3.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention? If so, was that interference necessary to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties? In particular, did the applicants have to bear “an individual and excessive burden” within the meaning of that provision as a result of such interference (see Lekić v. Slovenia   [GC], no.   36480/07, §   110, 11 December 2018)?