CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 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 } Published on 27 October 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 4566/19 Orkhan BAKHISHLI against Azerbaijan lodged on 16 November 2018 communicated on 8 October 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant was a member of an opposition party. The application concerns his detention and conviction, as well as the search and seizure carried out within the framework of the criminal proceedings instituted against him. On 27 March 2018 the applicant was sentenced to thirty days’ administrative detention for failure to comply with the lawful order of a police officer. The applicant alleged that his arrest was intended to prevent him from participating in a demonstration scheduled for 31 March 2018. Those events were the subject of the applicant’s complaints in application no. 24373/18. According to the applicant, a few days after his release from administrative detention, on 3 May 2018, on World Press Freedom Day, in a video recording filmed at the gravesite of the late journalist Elmar Huseynov he made statements critical of the government. On 7 May 2018 the police arrested the applicant and brought him to a police station where he was searched. During the search, the police found drugs on him and seized his mobile phone. On 9 May 2018 the applicant was charged with illegal possession of a large quantity of narcotic substances with the intent to sell under Article 234.4.3 of the Criminal Code. On the same day the Yasamal District Court ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention for a period of four months. The decision was upheld by the Baku Court of Appeal. Later, the applicant lodged a request with the Yasamal District Court to substitute his detention by house arrest. By a final decision of 7 June 2018, the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the request. The applicant lodged a complaint with the courts under Article 449 (judicial supervision procedure) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and sought to have the search and seizure declared unlawful. By a final decision of 20 August 2018, the Baku Court of Appeal rejected his complaint stating that the matter could not be subject to judicial supervision as the case had already been sent to the trial court. By a judgment of 18 September 2018 of the Baku Court of Serious Crimes, the applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment. Following a series of appeals, by a final decision of 4 June 2019, the Supreme Court reclassified the conviction from Article 234.4.3 to Article 234.1 (illegal possession of narcotic substances in an amount exceeding that necessary for personal use, without intent to sell) and reduced the sentence to three years’ imprisonment. Relying on Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention, the applicant complains that there was no reasonable suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence and that the domestic courts failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for his pre-trial detention. Relying on Article 6 of the Convention, he complains that the criminal proceedings against him were unfair because his conviction was based on planted evidence. He also complains under Article   8 of the Convention that the search of his person and seizure of his mobile phone violated his Convention rights. Relying on Article 10 and on Article 18 in conjunction with Articles 5, 6 and 8 of the Convention, he complains that his Convention rights were restricted because of his political activity, particularly after he had criticised the government in the video recording taken on 3 May 2018, and that those restrictions pursued an ulterior purpose of silencing him and preventing his political activity. 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 Ibrahimov and Mammadov v. Azerbaijan , nos. 63571/16 and   5   others, § 113, 13 February 2020)?   2.     Did the domestic courts give sufficient and relevant reasons for the applicant’s detention for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? Did they consider alternative measures to his detention (see Farhad Aliyev v.   Azerbaijan , no. 37138/06, §§ 184-87, 9 November 2010)?   3.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were the proceedings as a whole, including the way in which the evidence was taken and used in the proceedings, fair (see   Layijov v. Azerbaijan , no. 22062/07, §§ 62-65, 10 April 2014)?   4.     In connection with the search of the applicant’s person and seizure of his mobile phone, has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 (see Tortladze v. Georgia , no. 42371/08, §§ 55-58 and 66, 18 March 2021, with further references)?   5.     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 , cited above, §§ 164-74)?   6.     Were the restrictions imposed by the State in the present case, purportedly permitted under Articles 5, 6 and 8 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by those provisions, contrary to Article   18 of the Convention (see Ibrahimov and Mammadov , cited above, §§   148 et seq.)?   In support of their submissions, the parties are requested to provide any necessary documentary evidence which has not been previously submitted to the Court.