Published on 22 June 2026
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 18253/22
Niyamaddin ASLANZADE
against Azerbaijan
lodged on 16 March 2022
communicated on 3 June 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns administrative proceedings brought against the applicant under Article 510 (minor hooliganism) of the Code of Administrative Offences.
The applicant’s brother, a journalist, had been convicted of high treason and was serving a prison sentence in a penal facility, where he was on a hunger strike at the material time. The applicant further states that he repeatedly called the Ombudsperson’s Office call centre, requesting that they visit his brother as his situation was deteriorating. Observing what he perceived as an indifferent attitude on their part, he criticised the call‑centre employees for their inactivity during his final call.
According to the material in the case file, on an unspecified date the applicant called the Ombudsperson’s Office and insulted its employees, using offensive language. Following a complaint lodged with the Ministry of Internal Affairs (presumably by the Ombudsperson’s Office), the Ministry instructed the Baku City Main Police Department to examine the matter. On 26 August 2021 the police arrested the applicant and drew up an administrative‑offence report under Article 510 of the Code of Administrative Offences.
By a judgment of 26 August 2021, the Narimanov District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to five days’ administrative imprisonment. The court relied on the administrative‑offence report, the applicant’s alleged admission of the charge, and other evidence. On appeal, the applicant argued that he had not admitted to insulting the call‑centre employees and that he had merely criticised their inaction regarding his brother’s situation. He asked the court to summon the person he had allegedly insulted and to obtain the recording of his call. By a final decision of 15 September 2021, the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s judgment, without addressing the applicant’s arguments. The decision was served on the applicant on 17 September 2021.
Relying on Articles 6 and 10 of the Convention, the applicant complains of the alleged unfairness of the domestic proceedings and 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 charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of equality of arms respected and was the applicant’s right to a reasoned judgment respected? Was the applicant able to defend himself through legal assistance of his own choosing, as required by Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention?
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?
The parties are requested to submit evidence in support of their submissions (copies of documents related to the applicant’s arrest, the administrative-offence report, audio recording of the applicant’s call to the call centre, if available, and so on), as well as the translation into English or French of the applicant’s allegedly insulting statements which led to his administrative imprisonment.