CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sD37F5C3B { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 15 July 2024   FIRST SECTION Applications nos. 37562/23 and 37578/23 Bakhtiyar HAJIYEV against Azerbaijan and Shalala ALIKHANOVA against Azerbaijan lodged on 13 October 2023 and 13 October 2023 respectively communicated on 28 June 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant in application no. 37562/23, Mr Bakhtiyar Hajiyev (the first applicant), is a well-known civil society activist and lived together with the applicant in application no.   37578/23, Ms Shalala Alikhanova (the second applicant). The present applications concern the pre-trial detention of the first applicant, as well as the search and seizure carried out within the framework of the criminal proceedings instituted against the first applicant. Relying on Articles 5 and 18 of the Convention, the first applicant complains that his arrest and detention were unlawful because there was no reasonable suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence and that his Convention rights were restricted for purposes other than those prescribed in the Convention. He also claims that the domestic courts failed to justify the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody in his respect. Furthermore, the first applicant complains under Articles 8 and 18 of the Convention that the search and seizure carried out in his home and car within the framework of the criminal proceedings instituted against him violated his Convention rights. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the second applicant complains that the search and seizure carried out in her home within the framework of the criminal proceedings instituted against the first applicant violated her Convention rights.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Questions in respect of application no. 37562/23:   1.     Was the first applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was his detention compatible with Article   5 § 1 (c) in terms of being justified and based on a reasonable suspicion?   2.     Did the domestic courts give sufficient and relevant reasons for the first applicant’s detention for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? Did they consider alternative measures to his continued detention?   3.     Has there been an interference with the first applicant’s right to respect for his private life and home, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention, on account of the search and seizure carried out in his home and vehicle? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2?   4.     Were the restrictions imposed by the State in the present application, purportedly pursuant to Articles 5 and 8 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by those provisions, contrary to Article   18 of the Convention?   Questions in respect of application no. 37578/23:   5.     Has there been an interference with the second applicant’s right to respect for her private life and home, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention, on account of the search and seizure carried out in her home? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2?