CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 décembre 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 5 January 2026   THIRD SECTION Application no. 23035/19 Namig ABBASALIYEV against Azerbaijan lodged on 16 April 2019 communicated on 8 December 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns administrative-offence proceedings instituted against the applicant which resulted in his conviction under Article 206 of the Code on Administrative Offences for illegal drug possession. According to the applicant, on 15 January 2019 he was stopped by the police and taken to the Organised Crime Unit of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, where drugs were planted on his person. However, the administrative-offence report issued by the police states that, on the same day, the applicant was stopped in a park where narcotic substances were found on him during a search. By a judgment of 16 January 2019, the Narimanov District Court, referring to the relevant police reports and other evidence, found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to one month’s administrative imprisonment. The applicant appealed arguing, inter alia , that he had been arrested in the absence of a reasonable suspicion and that his conviction was based on planted evidence. By a final decision of 30 January 2019, the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s judgment. Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) and Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the proceedings against him were fabricated. In particular, he argues that he was convicted on the basis of planted evidence and that he had no access to a lawyer of his own choosing. The applicant also complains that the police, without any court decision, accessed his mobile phone and checked his correspondence and personal photographs. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     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, 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 (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)?   2.     As regards the seizure, retention and access to the applicant’s mobile telephone by the police, has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life and correspondence within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was the interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 (see Mukhtarli v. Azerbaijan and Georgia , no. 39503/17, § 212 and §§ 215-17, 5 September 2024)? Did the applicant exhaust all available and effective domestic remedies in respect of this complaint?   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 the search, if any, and so on).