CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 janvier 2026

.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 2 February 2026   THIRD SECTION Application no. 60763/19 Emin BABAYEV against Azerbaijan lodged on 15 November 2019 communicated on 14 January 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s administrative conviction for allegedly failing to comply with a lawful order of a police officer under Article 535 of the Code on Administrative Offences (CAO) when the police officer demanded him to stop swearing in the street and his allegedly unlawful and arbitrary detention in a police station for two days. On 4 May 2019 the applicant was arrested and brought to a police station where an administrative-arrest record and an administrative-offence report were drawn up. On the same day he was brought before a judge, but the hearing was postponed until 6 May 2019. According to the applicant, the judge, without having it noted in the record of the hearing, released him home from the courtroom. However, the police brought him back to the police station and detained him there until 6 May 2019. The applicant did not provide the record of the hearing dated 4 May 2019. By a judgment of 6 May 2019, the Sabail District Court convicted the applicant as charged and fined him in the amount of 200 Azerbaijani manats (approximately 104 euros at the material time). The judge also issued a request ( təqdimat ) – however, without specifying a recipient – to investigate the applicant’s unlawful detention in the police station. The applicant appealed, arguing that he had not been allowed to consult a lawyer of his own choosing while in detention, and that the first ‑ instance court failed to provide reasoning for its judgment. He further alleged that the court heard only the police officers who had drawn up the records. The appellate court, without addressing the applicant’s arguments, upheld the judgment of the lower court on 31 May 2019. The applicant lodged a complaint with the domestic courts under the judicial supervision procedure asking the court to find his detention from 4 to 6 May 2019 unlawful and arbitrary. By a decision of 24 June 2019, the Sabail District Court dismissed the claim as groundless, stating that, according to Article 89.4 of the CAO, an individual who had been charged under Article   535 of the CAO, could be detained for up to forty-eight hours. By a final decision of 19 July 2019, the appellate court quashed the decision of the first-instance court and refused to examine the complaint on the merits, noting that the complaints arising from the administrative-offence proceedings could not be examined under the judicial supervision procedure under Article 449 of the Code on Criminal Procedure, which was applicable to criminal proceedings. Relying on Articles 5, 6 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant complains about his allegedly unlawful and arbitrary detention and the alleged unfairness of the proceedings. He further complains about the alleged lack of effective remedy in respect of the complaint about his detention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention during the period between 4 and 6 May 2019 (see Gafgaz   Mammadov v. Azerbaijan , no. 60259/11, §§ 103-06, 15 October 2015)?   2. 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 (see Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan , nos.   67360/11 and 2 others, §§ 110-123, 11 February 2016)? Was the applicant able to defend himself through legal assistance of his own choosing, as required by Article   6 §   3   (c) of the Convention?   3. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective remedy by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his detention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (for general principles, see , for example, Iustin Robertino Micu v. Romania , no. 41040/11, § 105, 13 January 2015)?   The parties are requested to submit documents related to the administrative-offence proceedings which have not yet been submitted (including the record of the hearing dated 4 May 2019, and the full copy of the request ( təqdimat ) of the judge of the Sabail District Court dated 6 May 2019).