Communicated on 5 June 2019
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 5386/10
Ganimat ZAYIDOV
against Azerbaijan
lodged on 16 December 2009
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicant is a journalist with opposition-oriented political views. At the time of the events in question, he was in pre-trial detention and later served a prison sentence following criminal conviction for hooliganism and deliberate infliction of bodily injury (see Zayidov v. Azerbaijan, no. 11948/08, 20 February 2014). While in detention, he wrote a manuscript for a book. According to him, he intended to publish the book, which contained stories from his prison life, his views on various recent political events and criticism of various politicians and public figures. The manuscript was confiscated and destroyed by the prison authorities, who considered it as unlawful prison correspondence containing language and information prohibited under the internal penitentiary disciplinary rules. The applicant’s action for damages in civil proceedings was unsuccessful.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the equality of arms respected as regards the applicant’s presence at the court hearings and admission and examination of evidence?
2. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life or correspondence, 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 in pursuit of a legitimate aim?
3. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, in particular his 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 terms of Article 10 § 2 in pursuit of a legitimate aim?
4. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? Did the contents of the manuscript constitute the applicant’s intellectual property under domestic law? If so, has the applicant been deprived of his 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?
5. Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention rights on the grounds of his political opinions, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention?
6. The parties are requested to provide a detailed chronological factual account of the circumstances in which the manuscript was confiscated and destroyed.
7. The parties are requested to submit a full copy of the original text of the Internal Disciplinary Rules of Penitentiary Facilities referred to by the domestic prison authorities and courts.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy