CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 avril 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 } Published on 27 April 2026   THIRD SECTION Application no. 51515/20 Gultakin HAJIBEYLI against Azerbaijan lodged on 23 October 2020 communicated on 7 April 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a former member of the parliament and currently an opposition politician. On 20 October 2019, M.A., a journalist, broadcast on a television channel a recording of the applicant’s telephone conversation of 19   October 2019 with an employee of a foreign embassy in Azerbaijan, as well as a recording of her conversation with an employee of an international organisation’s representation in Azerbaijan which had taken place at a restaurant on 8 October 2019. On 22 October 2019 the applicant complained to the Prosecutor General’s Office, asking to identify the persons who had intercepted and disseminated her conversations and to institute criminal proceedings against them. On 29 October 2019 M.A. disseminated another recording, this time of a telephone conversation between the applicant and F.M., the leader of a political movement, who had allegedly threatened her. According to the applicant she again complained to the Prosecutor General’s Office and requested that criminal proceedings be instituted, including against M.A. On 6 December 2019 the Prosecutor General’s Office decided not to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant’s complaint of 22   October 2019. It appears from the case file that the applicant was not provided with a copy of that decision. The domestic courts refused to examine her complaint lodged against the decision of 6 December 2019 under the judicial supervision proceedings, holding that she had failed to join a copy of the impugned decision to her complaint. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicant complains of a breach of her right of access to a court. She further complains of violations of her rights under Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention and Article 18 taken in conjunction with Articles 6, 8 and 10 of the Convention. In particular, she alleges that the State authorities had unlawfully intercepted her conversations and transmitted them to M.A. because of her political activities, and that the domestic authorities failed to examine her complaints in that regard. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies and complied with the six-month time-limit, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention as in force at the relevant time?   2.     Did the applicant have access to a court for the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   3.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her private life and correspondence, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, has there been an interference by the State with the applicant’s right, 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? Did the situation give rise to the State’s positive obligations under Article   8 of the Convention? If so, have those obligations been complied with (compare Khadija Ismayilova v. Azerbaijan , nos. 65286/13 and 57270/14, 10   January 2019)?   4.     Has there been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention?   5.     Has there been a violation of Article 18 taken in conjunction with Articles 6, 8 and 10 of the Convention?   The parties are requested to provide copies of the decision of 6 December 2019, the applicant’s complaint to the Prosecutor General’s Office concerning the dissemination of her telephone conversation on 29 October 2019 and the decision(s) taken, if any, in respect of that complaint, as well as any other relevant document which has not been previously submitted to the Court.