CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 juin 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 } .s96D82958 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } Published on 24 June 2024   FIRST SECTION Applications nos. 29289/21 and 36060/21 Yunis SAFAROV against Azerbaijan and Niyamaddin AHMADOV against Azerbaijan lodged on 31 May 2021 and 25 June 2021 respectively communicated on 4 June 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The present applications concern the alleged restrictions imposed on the applicants’ right to visits by, and telephone conversations with, their family members and the outside world while in detention, without a relevant decision in that regard. Relying on Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention, the applicants complain that the restrictions imposed on them were unlawful and that they did not have an effective remedy at their disposal in respect of those restrictions as the domestic courts failed to properly examine their complaints. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life, or correspondence, within the meaning of Article   8 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was there a restriction imposed on their right to visits by, and telephone conversations with, their family members and the outside world? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2? 2.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaint under Article 8, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?