CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 août 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 15 September 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 26771/21 Nijad IBRAHIM against Azerbaijan communicated on 28 August 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s arrest and detention and restrictions imposed by the prosecuting authorities on his contacts with persons other than his lawyer while detained in a pre-trial detention facility. According to the material available in the case file, on 18 July 2020 the applicant published a post on his Facebook account inviting the public to participate in a demonstration against the President in front of the building of the President’s Office on 20 July. The applicant alleges that at around 2 p.m. on 20 July 2020 when being interviewed by journalists in front of his apartment he was arrested and later charged with violation of the epidemic, sanitary-hygiene or quarantine regime causing the spread of disease or creating a real threat of the spread of disease under Article 139-1.1 of the Criminal Code. He was accused of putting others at risk of being infected with the COVID-19 as he was outdoors while being infected with the virus. Later that day the applicant tested positive for the COVID-19. The applicant alleges that at the time of his arrest he was not carrying the virus. On 4 August 2020 the investigator in charge of the case decided to restrict the applicant’s rights to visits by and telephone conversations with persons other than his lawyer. Following a series of appeals by the applicant, by a final decision of 10 November 2020, the Baku Court of Appeal held that the investigator’s decision of 4 August 2020 was lawful and justified. By a judgment of 4 March 2021 of the Nasimi District Court, the applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to one year and three months’ imprisonment. Following a series of appeals, by a final decision of 6   December 2022, the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ judgments. Relying on Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complains that there was no reasonable suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence. He also complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the restrictions imposed on him by the prosecuting authorities while he was detained were unjustified. Relying on Article 18 of the Convention, the applicant complains that his rights under Articles 5 and 8 of the Convention were restricted for a purpose other than those envisaged by those provisions, namely in order to prevent him from attempting to organise a demonstration in front of the building of the President’s Office.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s detention compatible with Article 5 § 1 (c) in terms of being justified and based on a reasonable suspicion (see Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 15172/13, §§ 87 ‑ 89, 22   May 2014, and Ibrahimov and Mammadov v. Azerbaijan , nos. 63571/16 and 5 others, §§ 113-30, 13 February 2020)?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life or correspondence, within the meaning of Article   8 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the restrictions placed on his rights by the decision of the investigator? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 §   2 (see Mirgadirov v.   Azerbaijan and Turkey , no. 62775/14, §§ 115-25, 17 September 2020)?   3.     Were the restrictions imposed by the State in the present case, purportedly permitted under Articles 5 and 8 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by those provisions, contrary to Article   18 of the Convention (see Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey   (no.   2) [GC], no.   14305/17, §§ 421-22, 22 December 2020)?   In support of their submissions, the parties are requested to provide any necessary documentary evidence which has not been previously submitted to the Court.