CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 mars 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 23 March 2026   THIRD SECTION Application no. 34179/22 Zaur GANBAROV against Azerbaijan lodged on 23 June 2022 communicated on 5 March 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a journalist, and the application concerns the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings brought against him under Article 221 (hooliganism) of the Criminal Code. On 4 May 2020 the applicant visited the Gadabay District Unit of the State Social Protection Fund (“the Unit”) to inquire about a complaint that had been submitted by an individual to a news portal where he worked. According to the applicant, he was assaulted there by two employees of the Unit, including its director, and his mobile phone was severely damaged during the incident. Criminal proceedings were instituted in connection with the incident, and the applicant was charged with hooliganism. According to the charge, it was the applicant who initiated the altercation and attacked the deputy director of the Unit and another employee. By a judgment of 29 October 2020, the Gadabay District Court found the applicant guilty under Article 221.3 of the Criminal Code as charged and sentenced him to three years and six months’ imprisonment. In reaching this conclusion, the court relied on witness statements, an expert report, and other evidence. The applicant appealed, arguing that the first ‑ instance court had failed to grant his requests to obtain evidence, in particular video ‑ camera recordings from inside the building, which he claimed would show that he had been the one assaulted. The appellate court reclassified the charge under Article   221.2.2 (hooliganism committed by resisting a public official) and replaced the prison sentence with a restriction of liberty for one year, two months and ten days. By a final decision of 23 February 2022, the Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s judgment. Relying on Articles 6 and 10 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the criminal proceedings against him were fabricated, and that he was convicted on the basis of unreliable evidence. In particular, he complains about the alleged failure of the domestic courts to ensure equality of arms in the proceedings. He further argues that the criminal proceedings were instituted in order to punish him for his journalistic work. 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 and the applicant’s right to a reasoned judgment were respected (see, for example, Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan (no. 2) , no. 32734/11, §§ 76-83, 7 April 2022, and Abdullayev v. Azerbaijan , no. 6005/08, §§ 58-66, 7 March 2019)?   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 Mahmudov and Agazade v. Azerbaijan , no. 35877/04, §§   48-52, 18 December 2008)?