CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 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 4 March 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 462/17 Elvin GULIYEV against Azerbaijan lodged on 26 December 2016 communicated on 16 February 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The present case concerns the applicant’s arrest and pre-trial detention in the framework of administrative offence proceedings conducted against him. At the material time, the applicant was a social and political activist, writing posts on social media criticising the government. On 20 January 2016 the applicant was arrested and taken to the police. On the same day an administrative offence record was issued in his respect stating that he had disobeyed an order of the police officers to go with them to a police station. Consequently, the applicant was charged with an administrative offence under Article 310.1 (failure to comply with a lawful order of the police) of the Code on Administrative Offences. According to the applicant, he was detained at the police station until the next day. On 21 January 2016 the applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to 30 days of imprisonment, starting on the same date. On an unspecified date after having served his sentence, the applicant lodged a complaint before the Sumgait city court against the actions of the police who had arrested him. The applicant alleged, inter alia , that he had been arrested in circumstances different from those indicated in the official records, that the arrest had actually been connected with his political criticism on social media, and that his detention from 20 January to 21 January 2016 had been unlawful. On 28 July 2016 the Sumgait city court dismissed the applicant’s complaint, saying, inter alia , that the applicant’s arrest and detention had been in accordance with the Code of Administrative Offences. The applicant appealed, complaining that the first-instance court had failed to conduct any judicial investigation and that the hearing had lasted only thirty minutes and constituted mere formalism. On 10 October 2016 the Sumgait Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The applicant complains that his arrest and detention were in breach of Article 5, 10 and 18 of the Convention. He also complains that there was no effective remedy to challenge lawfulness of the arrest and detention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s detention between 20 and 21 January 2016 in compliance with domestic procedural rules?   2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective procedure by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his detention, as required by Article   5 §   4 of the Convention?   3.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article   10 §   1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   10 §   2?   4.     Were the restrictions imposed by the State on the applicant, purportedly permitted under Articles 5 and 10 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by those provisions, contrary to Article 18 of the Convention?   5.     The Government are requested to submit copies of all documents relating to the applicant’s arrest and detention .