CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 septembre 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 } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } Published on 23 September 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 27565/21 Azad HASANOV against Azerbaijan lodged on 31 March 2021 communicated on 6 September 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the criminal proceedings against the applicant who was convicted under Article 234.1 (illegal possession of narcotic substances in an amount exceeding that necessary for personal use, without intention to sell) of the Criminal Code and was sentenced to one year’s imprisonment. Relying on Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant alleges that the criminal proceedings against him were unfair since his conviction was based on planted evidence and he was deprived of the opportunity to hire a lawyer of his own choice at the initial stages of the pre-trial investigation. 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 (see Layijov v. Azerbaijan , no. 22062/07, 10 April 2014, and Sakit Zahidov v. Azerbaijan , no. 51164/07, 12 November 2015)? In particular: (a) Was the applicant’s right to a reasoned decision respected? (b) Were the principles of equality of arms and adversarial proceedings respected? (c) Was the applicant’s conviction based on unlawfully obtained evidence? (d) Was the applicant afforded an adequate opportunity to contest the evidence against him, and to adduce evidence in support of his line of defence and to have such evidence assessed by the court? 2. Was the applicant afforded an opportunity to defend himself through legal assistance of his own choosing as required by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s right to be defended by a lawyer of his own choice restricted at the initial stages of the pre-trial investigation? The Government are requested to submit copies of all the documents in the case file relating to the domestic proceedings.