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 } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 5 January 2026   THIRD SECTION Application no. 49458/20 Anar MALIKOV against Azerbaijan lodged on 17 October 2020 communicated on 8 December 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a member of an opposition party. The application concerns his conviction and short-term imprisonment for breaching of antiepidemic and quarantine regimes under Article 211 of the Code on Administrative Offences. By a judgment of 22 March 2020, the Jalilabad District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to ten days’ administrative imprisonment. The court referring to the administrative-offence report and administrative-arrest record issued by the police, held, in a brief manner and without further elaboration, that on 18 March 2020 the applicant had disseminated false information about the quarantine regime on Facebook. Following the applicant’s appeal, by a final decision of 22 April 2020, the Shirvan Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s judgment. Relying on Articles 6, 10 and 18 of the Convention, the applicant complains of the alleged unfairness of the domestic proceedings and of a violation of his right to freedom of expression. He further argues that his arrest and subsequent conviction did not pursue legitimate purposes, and were solely due to his political affiliation.     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, were the principle of equality of arms and the applicant’s right to a reasoned decision respected? 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. Azerbaija n , no.   60259/11, §§ 83-93, 15 October 2015)?   2.     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, §§ 170-74, 13 February 2020, with further references)?   3.     Were the restrictions imposed by the State in the applicant’s case, purportedly pursuant to Articles 6 and 10 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by those provisions, contrary to Article   18 of the Convention (see Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea ) [GC], nos. 20958/14 and 38334/18, §§ 1341 et seq., 25 June 2024)?   The parties are requested to submit copies of all documents relating to the administrative proceedings, which have not yet been submitted (copies of the administrative-arrest record, administrative-offence report, and so on).