CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 juillet 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s25F5CC02 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s54AB6003 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 2 September 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 9932/21 Arif BABAYEV against Azerbaijan lodged on 19 January 2021 communicated on 16 July 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns administrative proceedings against the applicant, an opposition activist, who was charged with an administrative offence under Article 388-1.1.1 (dissemination on the internet of information restricted by law) of the Code of Administrative Offences and sentenced to one month’s administrative detention. According to the applicant the police seized and retained his mobile phone at the time of arrest. By a judgment of 22 April 2020, the Surakhani District Court, in a very brief manner, referring to a police report and case material (not available in the case file), held that the applicant had committed the abovementioned offence. The court did not make it clear in its judgment what information disseminated by the applicant had been unlawful. In his appeal, the applicant argued that he had not disseminated any prohibited information and that he had been convicted for having shared on his Facebook account an interview of an opposition leader and a statement of a former military serviceman published by the Azadliq newspaper. By a final judgment of 5 May 2020, the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s judgment. The final judgment also lacked information about the alleged unlawful content disseminated by the applicant. Relying on Articles 5, 6, 8 and 10 of the Convention, the applicant complains of the alleged unfairness of the domestic proceedings and of a violation of his right to freedom of expression. He also complains that the domestic authorities seized and retained his mobile phone and accessed it without having any lawful grounds. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     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, were the principle of equality of arms and the   applicant’s right to a reasoned decision respected?   2.     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? Was the sanction imposed on the applicant proportionate to the aims pursued?   3.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life and correspondence, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2 in pursuit of a legitimate aim?   The parties are requested to submit copies of all documents relating to the   administrative proceedings, and the original text and a translation into English or French of the impugned unlawful information disseminated by the   applicant which led to his administrative conviction.