Published on 10 November 2025
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 971/21
Asif YUSIFLI
against Azerbaijan
lodged on 9 December 2020
communicated on 21 October 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicant was an advisor to the chairman of an opposition party. The application concerns his arrest and detention, as well as the search and seizure carried out within the framework of the criminal proceedings instituted against him.
On 14 July 2020 the applicant participated in a demonstration that took place following the border clashes between Armenia and Azerbaijan in the same month. The applicant was also sharing live videos during the demonstration. On the same day some participants of the demonstration forcefully entered the building of the National Assembly.
On 16 July 2020 a search was carried out in the applicant’s flat, allegedly without a search warrant issued by a court or a decision by an investigator. During the search, the authorities seized his mobile phone and computer. On 17 July 2020 at 00:05 a.m. the police arrested the applicant.
On 18 July 2020 the applicant was charged with the criminal offences under Articles 186.2.1 (aggravated intentional destruction or damaging of property), 233 (organisation or active participation in actions causing a breach of public order) and 315 (resistance to or violence against a public officer) of the Criminal Code. On the same day the Nasimi District Court ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention. The decision was upheld by the Baku Court of Appeal. Later, the applicant lodged a request with the Nasimi District Court to substitute his detention by house arrest. By a final decision of 21 September 2020, the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the request. Subsequently, the applicant was additionally charged with new criminal offences under Articles 186.2.2 and 127.2.1 (aggravated intentional infliction of less serious harm to health) of the Criminal Code.
The applicant lodged a complaint with the courts under Article 449 (judicial supervision procedure) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and sought to have the search and seizure declared unlawful. By a final decision of 21 October 2020, the Baku Court of Appeal refused to examine the complaint on the merits.
By a judgment of 21 June 2021, the Sabail District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him conditionally to four and a half years’ imprisonment with three and a half years’ probation. Following a series of appeals, by a final decision of 27 April 2023, the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ judgments.
Relying on Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention, the applicant complains that there was no reasonable suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence, that the domestic courts failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for his continued detention and that he was not afforded an effective judicial review of the lawfulness of his detention.
He also complains under Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the search and seizure were carried out in breach of the relevant domestic law and constituted an unlawful interference with his Convention rights.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s pre-trial detention compatible with Article 5 § 1 (c) in terms of being justified and based on a reasonable suspicion (see Rasul Jafarov v. Azerbaijan, no. 69981/14, §§ 114‑18, 17 March 2016)?
2. Did the domestic courts give sufficient and relevant reasons for the applicant’s detention for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? Did they consider alternative measures to his continued detention (see Farhad Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 37138/06, §§ 184-87, 9 November 2010)?
3. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective procedure by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his detention, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see Farhad Aliyev, §§ 203-04, and Rasul Jafarov, §§ 140-42, both cited above)?
4. In connection with the search and seizure, has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life and home 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 (see Avaz Zeynalov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 37816/12 and 25260/14, §§ 78-92, 22 April 2021)?
5. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? If so, was it lawful and proportionate to the aims pursued (see Smirnov v. Russia, no. 71362/01, §§ 53-59, 7 June 2007)?
In support of their submissions, the parties are requested to provide any necessary documentary evidence which has not been previously submitted to the Court.