Communicated on 3 February 2020 Published on 24 February 2020

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 24460/16 Shahbaz Khudu oglu RUSTAMKHANLI against Azerbaijan lodged on 16 April 2016

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the imposition of a financial sanction and the freezing of the bank accounts following an alleged unlawful tax inspection carried out at the Qanun Magazine Editorial Office ( Qanun Jurnalı Redaksiyası ), a company of which the applicant was the owner and director. The applicant raises various complaints under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention .

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its criminal head applicable to the proceedings in the present case? 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 applicant ’ s right to a reasoned judgment respected?

2. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s right to respect for his private life, home and correspondence, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention on account of the search carried out at the premises of the Qanun Magazine Editorial Office? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?

3. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, on account of the seizure of the documents and belongings during the search carried out at the premises of the Qanun Magazine Editorial Office? If so, was that interference lawful and 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? In particular, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V)?

4. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention , on account of the freezing of the bank accounts? If so, was that interference lawful and 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? In particular, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Immobiliare Saffi , cited above, § 59)?