CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 avril 2025

.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 } .sC5439D39 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s798A1C99 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:center } .s2993E866 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .sD257D4B4 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sE8489E90 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE8787440 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s480C64EC { height:73.5pt } .s61540776 { height:54.4pt } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 19 May 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 2865/24 Emin IBRAHIMOV against Azerbaijan and 2 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 29 April 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern separate sets of administrative proceedings brought by the prosecution authorities against the applicants for allegedly breaching Article 388-1.1.1 (dissemination on the internet of information restricted by law) of the Code on Administrative Offences. The domestic courts, referring to administrative-offence reports issued by the prosecution authorities, held that the applicants had published inappropriate posts and imparted restricted information on Facebook and Twitter about operations of the Azerbaijani military forces, and sentenced each applicant to thirty days’ administrative detention. Relying on Article 10 of the Convention, the applicants complain of a violation of their right to freedom of expression. The applicant in application no. 2865/24 also complains of the alleged unfairness of the domestic proceedings. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Common question 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was the interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2 in pursuit of a legitimate aim? Were the sanctions imposed on the applicants proportionate to the aims pursued?   The parties are invited to provide copies of all documents relating to the administrative proceedings, which are not already in the case file, and a translation into English or French of the allegedly restricted information which the applicants disseminated on social media. Case-specific question (Application no. 2865/24) 2.     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 decision respected?     APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 2865/24 Ibrahimov v.   Azerbaijan 23/01/2024 Emin Shaig oglu IBRAHIMOV 1981 Baku Azerbaijani Samad RAHIMLI   2. 3755/24 Tahmazov v.   Azerbaijan 30/12/2023 Amrah Amrah oglu TAHMAZOV 1989 Barda Azerbaijani Elchin SADIGOV 3. 3757/24 Gahramanli v.   Azerbaijan 30/12/2023 Nurlan Ramiz oglu GAHRAMANLI 1997 Sumgayit Azerbaijani Elchin SADIGOV