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 } Published on 27 April 2026   THIRD SECTION Application no. 8410/20 Khadija ISMAYILOVA against Azerbaijan lodged on 6 February 2020 communicated on 8 April 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a well-known investigative journalist. By a final decision of the Supreme Court of 25 May 2016, she was convicted under Articles   192.2.2 (illegal entrepreneurship committed for the purpose of generating a large amount of income) and 213.1 (tax evasion) of the Criminal Code and sentenced to three and a half years’ imprisonment, suspended on probation for a period of five years. Following the amendments to the Criminal Code, the Supreme Court, by a final decision of 16 February 2017 delivered in the follow ‑ up proceedings, upheld the lower courts’ judgments reclassifying the applicant’s conviction under Article 192.2.2 of the Criminal Code as the offence under Article 192.1 (illegal entrepreneurship) and reducing her sentence to two years and three months’ imprisonment, suspended on probation. The present application concerns a separate civil claim lodged by the tax authorities against the applicant based on the Supreme Court’s decision of 25   May 2016 convicting the applicant of tax evasion. In the framework of those civil proceedings, two of the applicant’s bank accounts were frozen pursuant to interim court orders. By a final decision of 7 August 2019, the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ judgments granting the claim and ordering the applicant to pay the outstanding tax debt in the amount of 45,145.63 Azerbaijani manats to the State budget. The applicant complains under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention that the civil proceedings against her were unjustified and politically motivated, that the domestic courts failed to give due consideration to the defence’s arguments, that their judgments lacked adequate reasoning, that the principle of equality of arms was not respected, and that her appeal against one of the orders on freezing of her bank accounts was not examined. Relying on Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention she complains that the payment order and the orders on freezing of her bank accounts violated her property rights. Relying on Article   10 of the Convention and Article 18 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 10 and Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1, the applicant complains that the measures ordered in the framework of the civil proceedings were imposed in retaliation for her journalistic work and that her rights were restricted for the ulterior purpose of hindering and punishing her for her journalism. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, were the applicant’s right to a reasoned decision and the principles of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms respected?   2.     Has the applicant been deprived of her possessions in the public interest, and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention? If so, was that interference necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties?   3.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, in particular her right to impart information and ideas, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in pursuit of a legitimate aim in terms of Article   10 §   2?   4.     Were the restrictions imposed by the State in the present case, purportedly permitted under Article 10 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by those provisions, contrary to Article   18 of the Convention?