CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 mai 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s65E06E64 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s96D82958 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } Published on 16 June 2025   THIRD SECTION Applications nos. 21786/20 and 41464/20 Fuad ISMAYILOV against Azerbaijan lodged on 4 May 2020 and 20 August 2020 respectively communicated on 28 May 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern two separate sets of administrative proceedings against the applicant, who was a representative of a candidate in parliamentary elections of 9 February 2020, resulting in his administrative conviction under Article 206 of the Code on Administrative Offences for illegal drug possession on two different occasions. On 7 March 2020 the police arrested the applicant and brought him to a police station where he was searched allegedly in the absence of a lawyer and drugs were found on him. By a final decision of 13 March 2020, the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s judgment convicting the applicant as charged. He was sentenced to two months’ administrative detention. After having been released from detention, on 21 May 2020 the applicant was arrested again, and drugs were found on his person after a search at the police station. By a final decision of 1 June 2020, the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s judgment by which he was again sentenced to two months’ administrative detention. Relying on Articles 3 and 6 the Convention, the applicant complains about confinement in a metal cage in the courtroom and the alleged unfairness of both sets of domestic proceedings. In particular, he complains that his conviction was based on planted evidence. Relying on Article 10 of the Convention and Article 18 in conjunction with Article 6, he complains that he was arrested and convicted after he had written graffiti about the chairman of the Central Electoral Commission (CEC) on a wall of the building in front of the CEC and that his conviction pursued ulterior purposes of silencing and intimidating him and preventing his protests about the alleged irregularities during the elections.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been subjected to degrading treatment when he was confined in a metal cage during the hearing before the appellate court on 13   March 2020, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention (see Natig Jafarov v. Azerbaijan , no. 64581/16, §§ 37-41, 7 November 2019)?   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 principle of equality of arms respected and was the applicant’s conviction based on unlawfully obtained evidence? Was the applicant afforded an adequate opportunity to challenge the authenticity of the evidence against him and to oppose its use? Was the applicant’s right to a reasoned judgment respected (see Layijov v. Azerbaijan , no. 22062/07, §§ 62-76, 10 April 2014)?   Was the applicant able to defend himself through legal assistance of his own choosing, as required by Article   6 §   3   (c) of the Convention (see Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan , no. 60259/11, §§ 88-93, 15 October 2015)?   3. 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 (see Ibrahimov and Mammadov v. Azerbaijan , nos. 63571/16 and 5   others, §§ 164-74, 13 February 2020)? 4. Were the restrictions imposed by the State on the applicant, purportedly pursuant to Article 6 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by that provision, contrary to Article   18 of the Convention (see Ukraine v. Russia ( re Crimea) [GC], nos. 20958/14 and 38334/18, §§   1337 ‑ 1338, 25 June 2024)? The parties are requested to submit evidence in support of their submissions (copies of documents related to the applicant’s arrest, search and seizure records, video recordings of search, if any, and so on).