Published on 31 March 2025
 
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 5831/24
Nemat ABBASOV
against Azerbaijan
lodged on 9 February 2024
communicated on 12 March 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns administrative conviction of the applicant for “failure to comply with a lawful order of a police officer” under Article 535.1 of the Code of Administrative Offences (CAO).
According to a statement of a police officer and an administrative-offence report, on 10 September 2023 the applicant allegedly published, on a social network, fake information concerning operations of the Azerbaijani military forces, despite a warning by the Ministry of Internal Affairs to refrain from disseminating information of State importance and fake news on the military operations ongoing at the material time.
By a judgment of 20 September 2023 the Narimanov District Court, referring to the relevant police report briefly stated that the applicant had disobeyed the lawful order of the police. The applicant was convicted as charged and was sentenced to thirty days’ administrative detention. By a final decision of 4 October 2023, the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s judgment.
Relying on Articles 6 and 10 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.
 
 
 
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 (see Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 67360/11 and 2 others, §§ 110-123, 11 February 2016)? Was the applicant afforded legal assistance during the pre-trial stage and proceedings before the first-instance court, within the meaning of Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention (see Huseynli and Others, cited above, §§ 125-127, and Huseyn and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 35485/05 and 3 others, §§ 171‑73, 26 July 2011)
 
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? Was the sanction imposed on the applicant proportionate to the aims pursued (see Mahmudov and Agazade v. Azerbaijan, no. 35877/04, 18 December 2008)?
 
The parties are requested to submit copies of all documents relating to the administrative proceedings, which are not already in the case file, and the original text and a translation into English or French of the applicant’s social‑media posts which led to his conviction.