CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s3B53EBCA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:7pt } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s798A1C99 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:center } .s96D82958 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2E302ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:14pt } .s1721E4C5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   Published on 14 October 2024   FIRST SECTION Applications nos. 34247/18 and 27312/19 Giyas IBRAHIMOV v. Azerbaijan and Giyas IBRAHIMOV and Hasan IBRAHIMOV against Azerbaijan lodged on 5 July 2018 and 7 May 2019 respectively communicated on 27 September 2024   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE Application no. 34247/18 concerns the criminal proceedings against the applicant, a member of the NIDA civic movement. On the night of 9 to 10   May 2016 he and B.M., sprayed graffiti on a statue of the former president of Azerbaijan in order to express their opposition against the government and disseminated photographs thereof on social networks, which were also reproduced by some online media. Several hours later, the applicant was arrested allegedly on the basis of operational information received by the police about his involvement in drug trafficking. Domestic proceedings concerning the applicant’s arrest and pre ‑ trial detention have been subject of the Court’s judgment in Ibrahimov and Mammadov v. Azerbaijan (nos.   63571/16 and 5 others, 13   February 2020). By a judgment of 25 October 2016 the Baku Court of Serious Crimes convicted the applicant under Article 234.4 (illicit acquisition, possession, and transportation of narcotic substances in large quantities by a group of persons in prior agreement) of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. The applicant complained, among other things, that the criminal case against him had been fabricated in order to punish him for painting graffiti on a statue of the former president. By a final judgment of 30   November 2017 (served on the applicant on 17 January 2018) the Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s judgment. Application no. 27312/19 concerns the criminal proceedings against the applicants under Article 289.2 (contempt of court) of the Criminal Code. The domestic courts held that the applicants had insulted the judges of the appellate court at the hearing concerning the first applicant’s trial. They sentenced the first applicant to six months’ imprisonment (resulting in a cumulative sentence of ten years and three months’ imprisonment) and the second applicant, his father, to one year and six months of correctional work. By a final judgment of 10 October 2018 (served on the applicants on 12   November 2018) the Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s judgment. In March 2019 the first applicant was released and exonerated from serving the remainder of his sentence after being pardoned by a presidential decree. Relying on Article 6 of the Convention, the first applicant complains that the domestic courts’ judgments concerning his trial were not duly reasoned and that his conviction was based on flawed evidence. Relying on Article 10 of the Convention and Article 18 taken in conjunction with Article 6 of the Convention, he also complains that his criminal conviction was aimed at punishing him for spraying graffiti with political slogans on a statue of the former president. Both applicants complain under Article   10 of the Convention that their right to freedom of expression was breached as a result of their conviction for contempt of court.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Application no. 34247/18   1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s right to a reasoned judgment based on a proper examination of the submissions and evidence respected in the present case (see Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan (no. 2) , no. 919/15, §§   205-10, 16   November 2017)?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article   10 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, did his criminal conviction for illicit acquisition, possession, and transportation of narcotic substances amount to an interference with the exercise of his freedom of expression? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   10 §   2?   3. Did the conviction of the applicant in the present case, purportedly pursuant to Article 6 of the Convention, pursue a purpose other than those envisaged by that provision, contrary to Article   18 of the Convention?     Application no. 27312/19 Has there been an interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention as a result of their criminal conviction for contempt of court? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2 (see, for example, Skałka v. Poland , no. 43425/98, §§ 30-43, 27 May 2003; Saday v. Turkey , no.   32458/96, §§ 30-37, 30 March 2006; and Žugić v. Croatia , no. 3699/08, §§ 24-49, 31 May 2011)?     Appendix   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of birth Place of residence Nationality Represented by 1. 34247/18 Ibrahimov v. Azerbaijan 05/07/2018 Giyas Hasan oglu IBRAHIMOV 1994 Baku Azerbaijani Elchin SADIGOV 2. 27312/19 Ibrahimov v. Azerbaijan 07/05/2019 Giyas Hasan oglu IBRAHIMOV 1994 Baku Azerbaijani Hasan Giyas oglu IBRAHIMOV 1963 Baku Azerbaijani