CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 octobre 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 } .s65E06E64 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .sE32EE3A0 { width:110.46%; margin-right:7.05pt; margin-left:7.05pt; border-collapse:collapse; } .sE0C930B5 { width:7.04%; 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 } .s99B5AE45 { width:43.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2B493B85 { width:13.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s9EA45D88 { width:20.94%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sF829F1AC { width:14.5%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sAB93C973 { width:7.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8E80B338 { width:43.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sDDFD271C { width:13.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s153C3890 { width:20.94%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1299F2BC { width:14.5%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } Published on 27 October 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 7087/17 Erkin GADIRLI and Others against Azerbaijan lodged on 19 January 2017 communicated on 9 October 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. The seven applicants were activists or members of the Board of Directors of the Republican Alternative Civic Movement (REAL). On 10 June 2016, the first, second, third, fifth and seventh applicants (board members), acting on behalf of REAL, entered into a contract with a publishing house to print promotional leaflets for their political organisation and its leader. On 12 June 2016, police officers from the Baku City Police Department conducted a search of the publisher’s premises in response to an alleged bomb threat. During the operation, they seized the leaflets that had been ordered by REAL but had not yet been delivered to it. The five board members lodged complaints with the domestic courts, arguing that the police operation had been conducted without a court order and that the seizure of their leaflets was unlawful. However, by a final decision of 31 August 2016, the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the complaint, holding that the operation had been lawful as there had been a threat to human life. In August 2016, the applicants again commissioned the printing of promotional leaflets expressing their opposition to a newly announced referendum. On 15 August, the fourth and sixth applicants (REAL activists) were arrested after collecting the leaflets and, apparently, while distributing them. The police seized the materials. On 16 August, both applicants were brought before the Sabail District Court on administrative offense charges. The case against each applicant was examined in separate proceedings. The court convicted both applicants under Article 535.1 (failure to comply with a lawful order of a police officer) of the Code of Administrative Offences (CAO) and sentenced them to seven days of administrative detention. By final decisions of 30 August 2016, the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the decisions of the first-instance court. The five board members lodged a complaint with the domestic courts under the procedure provided by Article 449 (judicial supervision procedure) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the CCrP), arguing that the police operation had been conducted without a court order and that the seizure of their leaflets had been unlawful. By a final decision of 27 February 2017, the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the complaint as inadmissible. The court held that Article 449 of the CCrP was not applicable to this type of complaints. The first, second, third, fifth and seventh applicants complain that the confiscation of their leaflets, as well as the arrest and administrative conviction of the fourth and sixth applicants for distributing those materials, constituted a violation of their right to freedom of expression, as guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention. They further complain of a violation of their rights under Article 18 of the Convention, arguing that these alleged interferences pursued an ulterior purpose related to their political activity. The fourth and sixth applicants complain under Articles 6, 10 and 18 of the Convention that the administrative proceedings against them were unfair, violated their right to freedom of expression and pursued an ulterior purpose related to their political activity. They argue, inter alia , that the distribution of leaflets did not constitute an offence under the CAO, and that the police could not have lawfully ordered them to cease the dissemination of the materials. They also argue that they were not afforded sufficient time to prepare their defence, and that the decisions of the domestic courts lacked adequate reasoning. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   Common questions 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression, in particular their right to impart information and ideas, 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?   2.     Were the restrictions imposed by the State on the applicants, purportedly permitted under Article 10 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by those provisions, contrary to Article   18 of the Convention?   Specific questions in respect of the fourth and sixth applicants   3.     Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the charges against them, in accordance with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) of the Convention? Were the proceedings, taken as a whole, fair? Was the applicants’ right to a reasoned judgment respected? Were the applicants afforded adequate time and facilities to prepare their defence?             APPENDIX No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Erkin Togrul oglu GADIRLI 1972 Azerbaijani Baku 2. Khalid Zakir oglu BAGIROV 1976 Azerbaijani Baku 3. Azer Agagasim oglu GASIMLI 1975 Azerbaijani Baku 4. Elshan Nazim oglu GASIMOV 1984 Azerbaijani Baku 5. Altay Rashid oglu GOYUSHOV 1965 Azerbaijani Baku 6. Togrul Shahin oglu ISMAYILOV 1989 Azerbaijani Baku 7. Natig Mehman oglu JAFAROV 1972 Azerbaijani Baku List of applicants: