CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 13 juin 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sF28C8B01 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sE207830C { margin-top:54pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sE77B86B8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sEB972D3E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .s55E5497F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:10pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s4836203C { font-style:italic; text-transform:none } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .s473B62F0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:13.5pt } .s4B4B41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } .s16DC539 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic } .s8DF6C4 { font-family:Arial; color:#333333 } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sE5273FBD { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sCE8FC256 { font-family:Arial; color:#212529 } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s20FC8552 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11.5pt } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8408AAD1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .s1C891167 { width:1.73pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sC47DA4E2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7CAC83C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sD8AE9261 { width:36.9pt; display:inline-block } .s6B870CDD { width:153.11pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block } .sD00444C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   FIRST SECTION CASE OF RFE/RL INC. AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN (Applications nos. 56138/18 and 3 others)     JUDGMENT   Art 10 • Freedom to receive and impart information • Wholesale blocking of four online media outlets on grounds some articles published by them featured allegedly unlawful content not “prescribed by law” • Insufficient safeguards against arbitrariness • Unforeseeable interpretation and/or application of domestic law   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 13 June 2024     FINAL   13/09/2024   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of RFE/RL Inc. and Others v. Azerbaijan, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Marko Bošnjak , President ,   Alena Poláčková,   Lətif Hüseynov,   Péter Paczolay,   Ivana Jelić,   Erik Wennerström,   Raffaele Sabato , judges , and Ilse Freiwirth, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the applications (nos.   56138/18, 48735/19, 51207/19 and 58694/19) against the Republic of Azerbaijan lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the applicant organisations and individual applicants whose names are listed in the appended table (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated in the appended table; the decision to give notice to the Azerbaijani Government (“the   Government”) of the complaints under Articles 10 and 18 of the Convention (in respect of all applications), Article 6 of the Convention (in   respect of applications nos. 56138/18 and 48735/19) and Article 13 of the Convention (in respect of applications nos. 48735/19, 51207/19 and 58694/19); the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 21 May 2024, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns the wholesale blocking of four online media outlets on the grounds that some of the articles published by them featured allegedly unlawful content. The applicants raised complaints under Articles 10 and 18 of the Convention and other Convention provisions. THE FACTS 2.     The personal details of the applicant organisations and individual applicants and their representatives are set out in the appended table. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Əsgərov. 4.     The facts of the cases may be summarised as follows. RFE/RL INC. v . AZERBAIJAN , APPLICATION N o . 56138/18 5.     The applicant organisation, RFE/RL Inc. (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty), is a private, non-profit corporation funded by the United States Congress. 6.     In 2004 the applicant organisation began operating in Azerbaijan through its representative office. Apart from radio broadcasting, it also operated a news website under the domain name azadliq.org. 7.     According to the applicant organisation, from the beginning of 2009 it was subjected to various forms of pressure by the authorities. In particular, in 2009 it was banned from broadcasting on FM frequencies. In 2014 Ms   Khadija Ismayilova, who was the former head of the applicant organisation’s Baku office and a freelance associate of the organisation at that time, was arrested and prosecuted (see Khadija Ismayilova v.   Azerbaijan (no.   2) , no. 30778/15, 27 February 2020, for more detail). In the same year, the applicant organisation’s Baku office was raided and sealed. In 2015 the   authorities instituted an investigation into alleged tax evasion by the applicant organisation. 8.     By Law no. 539-VQD of 10 March 2017, the Law on Information, Informatisation and Protection of Information of 3 April 1998 (“the   IIPI   Law”) was amended to include a new Chapter III-I regulating “internet information resources” (see paragraph 54 below). This amendment entered into force on 19 March 2017. 9.     By Law no. 580-VQD of 7 April 2017, the Code of Civil Procedure (“the CCP”) was amended to include a new Chapter 40-6 concerning “the procedure for the restriction of access to an internet information resource” (see paragraph 57 below). This amendment entered into force on 20 April 2017. 10 .     In the meantime, by a letter of 27 March 2017 the Prosecutor General’s Office had informed the Ministry of Transport, Communication and High Technology (“the MTCHT”) that, following an inquiry, it had been established that azadliq.org and several other websites (unrelated to the applicant organisation) had “regularly breached the requirements of the [IIPI   Law] by carrying out destructive actions aimed at forcibly changing the constitutional order of the Republic of Azerbaijan and violating social stability, making open calls for the organisation of mass riots, promoting the activities of radical religious groups and engaging in other illegal activities”. In view of this, the Prosecutor General’s Office asked the MTCHT to take measures to stop the “broadcasts” of these websites and to apply other relevant restrictions. The letter did not specify any particular examples of any such information published on the relevant websites, or of any of the websites’ “other illegal activities”. 11 .     On the same date, 27 March 2017, relying on Articles 13-2.3 and 13 ‑ 3.3 of the IIPI Law, the MTCHT (which carried out the functions of “the   relevant executive authority” specified in Article 13-3 of the IIPI Law) decided to temporarily block access to the websites in question, including azadliq.org, with immediate effect, pending an application for a court order blocking access to them, because there was prohibited information published on those websites which “threatened the State and public interests protected by law”. That decision did not refer to or quote any specific articles or statements published by those websites. 12 .     On 30 March 2017 the Cybersecurity Centre under the MTCHT, which was later replaced by the MTCHT itself as a party to the first-instance proceedings, applied to the Sabail District Court for access to azadliq.org and the other websites mentioned above to be blocked, as well as, if possible, access to other identifiable internet information resources which provided a platform by which to access those websites. It reiterated what the Prosecutor General’s Office had stated in its letter and noted that the websites had breached the requirements of Article   13-2.3.2 of the IIPI Law, which prohibited the publication of information promoting violence and religious extremism and openly calling for ethnic, racial or religious hostility, a forcible change in the State’s constitutional order, a violation of territorial integrity, the forcible seizure or retention of State power, or the organisation of mass riots. It did not mention any specific information published by these websites which had been found to be unlawful. However, it appears that it provided the court with copies of several articles (according to the applicant organisation, seven articles) published by azadliq.org on various dates between November 2016 and March 2017. 13.     During the relevant hearings, the applicant organisation argued that blocking access to its website breached its rights and freedoms under the Constitution and the Convention. 14 .     On 12 May 2017 the Sabail District Court allowed the MTCHT’s application and ordered the blocking of azadliq.org, in addition to other websites mentioned in the application, but rejected the part of the application concerning the blocking of access to other identifiable internet information resources which provided a platform to access those websites, on the basis that it was non-specific. In respect of azadliq.org, while it appears that the MTCHT submitted seven articles which it had published, the court referred to four articles which it had published in “March and April 2017” (according to the applicant organisation, those articles had actually been published in February and March 2017), quoting short passages from each. 15.     In particular, the first quoted extract concerned a well-known journalist’s critical remarks concerning the recent changes to the Constitution adopted during the 2016 constitutional referendum, which he called “dangerous” because of the President’s exclusive power to appoint the   First   Vice ‑ President, vice-presidents and the Prime Minister. 16 .     The second extract contained statements by a former main opposition candidate in the 2013 presidential elections, who had said that the economic and social situation in the country was becoming more difficult and that there was a deepening crisis, that the problem of political prisoners was unresolved, that there were new instances of corruption, and that all of the above necessitated public protests by the people. 17.     The third extract referred to certain statements published in an NGO report and in Western media concerning a recent corruption scandal which implicated the Azerbaijani Government and some members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and was referred to as “caviar diplomacy”. 18 .     The fourth extract contained remarks by a person unnamed in that particular extract, who, from the context, appeared to be a recent emigrant to an unnamed country. He stated, inter alia , that “we” (apparently meaning the Azerbaijani people) had become a “false State”, had created a “false democracy” and had written a “false Constitution”, and that one day this situation would change. 19.     The court noted that, according to the findings of the MTCHT, the   information published by azadliq.org and the other websites mentioned above was in breach of Article 13-2.3.2 of the IIPI Law, and that therefore the Ministry’s application to block access to them was lawful. The blocking order was to be executed immediately following the delivery of the judgment. 20.     The applicant organisation appealed, arguing, inter alia , that the articles in question did not contain any unlawful information, but merely criticism of various public authorities and an analysis of various social and political issues, and that the wholesale blocking of access to its website violated its freedom of expression guaranteed by the Constitution and the Convention. It also submitted that, while the relevant amendments to the IIPI Law and the CCP had entered into force on 19 March and 20 April 2017 respectively, the MTCHT’s reference to some articles published by azadliq.org before those dates had been unlawful, because in accordance with the Constitution, legal acts had no retroactive effect, except for those that improved the legal situation of individuals and legal persons and eliminated or mitigated their legal liability. It further submitted that, contrary to the requirement in Articles 13-3.1 and 13-3.2 of the IIPI Law, the MTCHT had not given it any advance warning in connection with the impugned publications. Moreover, although Article 355-22.1 of the CCP required a first-instance court to examine applications concerning the restriction of access to internet information sources within five days, the court in the present case had delivered its judgment one month and twelve days after the MTCHT’s application, during which time access to the website had remained blocked in the absence of a court order. 21 .     By a judgment of 19 December 2017 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant organisation’s appeal, reiterating the first-instance court’s reasoning in support of the blocking order. As regards the applicant organisation’s arguments as to the absence of any unlawful content in the impugned articles, the court noted, inter alia , that information promoting violence and religious extremism and openly calling for a forcible change in the State’s constitutional order, the forcible seizure or retention of State power, or the organisation of mass riots did not necessarily refer to only information or calls expressed in “open text”, and that the restrictions provided in the IIPI Law also included information and calls of this nature expressed indirectly “in between the lines” ( “sətiraltı ifadə edilsə də” ) which could be perceived as such information or calls by “individual members of the society”. In this connection, the appellate court further referred to the extracts from the second and fourth articles quoted by the first-instance court (see paragraphs 16 and 18 above). 22.     As to the applicant organisation’s other objections, the appellate court further noted that the MTCHT’s reference to some articles published before the entry into force of the amendments to the IIPI Law and the CCP had not been unlawful, as those articles had not been removed from the website and had remained publicly accessible for an indefinite period after their publication, which had thus given rise to a continuing situation which had still obtained at the time when the MTCHT had applied to the court for a blocking order after the relevant amendments had entered into force. The   appellate court further noted that, although the blocking order had been issued by the lower court following a delay, it had nevertheless been issued within a reasonable period of time required for the comprehensive examination of the case. This delay had not substantially affected the parties’ rights and legal interests, and could not be considered a serious procedural shortcoming in the particular circumstances of the case. As to the MTCHT’s failure to issue an advance warning before applying to the court for a blocking order, the court noted that the purpose of such warning was to provide an opportunity to resolve the matter out of court. However, since the applicant organisation had always denied that the impugned articles contained any information prohibited by law, issuing such a warning would in any event have been futile. 23.     The applicant organisation lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court, essentially reiterating its previous arguments and also disagreeing with the appellate court’s reasoning concerning the nature of information whose publication was prohibited by the IIPI Law and the court’s broad interpretation of that Law. 24.     By a final decision of 4 June 2018 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the lower courts’ judgments, reiterating and agreeing with the appellate court’s reasoning. TALIBOV v. AZERBAIJAN , APPLICATION No. 48735/19 25.     The applicant, a journalist, is the sole founder and editor of the online news portal anaxeber.az. 26 .     On 5 August 2018 the MTCHT sent a warning letter to the applicant’s email address, noting that a number of articles published by anaxeber.az contained libellous ( böhtan ), false ( yalan ) and misleading ( qərəzli ) information and informing him that, if those articles were not removed from the website within eight hours, the MTCHT would apply to a court for a blocking order, in accordance with the IIPI Law (no copy of the warning letter is available in the case file). According to the applicant, he was abroad at the time and was unaware of the warning until a court order was made blocking access to the website. 27.     On an unspecified date the MTCHT applied to the Sabail District Court for a blocking order, submitting that anaxeber.az had published information prohibited by Article 13-2.3.9 of the IIPI Law and Article   13 ‑ 2.3.11 of the IIPI Law in conjunction with Article 10 of the Law on Mass Media of 7 December 1999 (“the Law on Mass Media”) (no copy of the application is available in the case file). 28 .     It appears that in its application the MTCHT referred to three particular articles published by anaxeber.az in June and July 2018, extracts from which were quoted in the first-instance court’s judgment. In particular, the first article criticised officials from the Ministry of Healthcare, including the Minister himself, referring to them as “unscrupulous healthcare officials” who did everything to “destroy society” and who “were hated and cursed by the people”. It also stated, inter alia , that “the healthcare system created by [the Minister was] a butcher and murderer of people”, and that the Minister defended “bloody-handed doctors” and did not allow them to be punished. 29 .     The second article concerned a “two-year delay” in the appointment of vice-presidents of Azerbaijan, and insinuated that there was a clash of “three clans” for these posts and that in the coming years “there would be a new clan forming the power elite”. The third article discussed recent riots which had taken place in Ganja which were officially considered to have been caused by religious radicals, and stated that the actual causes of those events had been “the tyranny of public officials”, “miserable social conditions”, unemployment, “the procrastination of public officials”, “the seizure of people’s lands”, “the mistreatment of citizens”, and so on. 30.     By a judgment of 7 August 2018 the Sabail District Court granted the MTCHT’s application and ordered that access to the website be blocked. It appears that the applicant was sent a summons informing him of the time and place of the hearing, but did not appear as he was still abroad. According to the court’s judgment, he did not inform the court of the reasons for his failure to appear, and the application was examined in his absence. 31 .     The court considered that the above-mentioned information constituted information prohibited by Article 13-2.3.11 of the IIPI Law, which prohibited the dissemination of “other information prohibited by the laws of the Republic of Azerbaijan”, in conjunction with Article 10 of the Law on Mass Media, which prohibited the use of the mass media for, inter   alia , publishing false, misleading and libellous information or committing other unlawful acts. It issued an order blocking access to the website, to be executed immediately following the delivery of the judgment. 32 .     The applicant appealed, arguing that the blocking order breached his rights under the Constitution and other domestic laws, as well as the Convention, and that the articles in question did not contain any information prohibited by law and did not exceed the limits of protected freedom of speech, in particular political speech. 33 .     In so far as it was claimed that the articles in question contained libellous information, referring to Article 44 of the Law on Mass Media, among other things, the applicant noted that there had been no defamation claims or complaints made by any allegedly affected persons, and there had been no court judgments in respect of those particular articles finding that the statements made had amounted to libel. 34.     On 21 September 2018 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the lower court’s judgment, essentially reiterating its reasoning. It also noted, in respect of the third article, that while there were ongoing criminal investigations into the Ganja events, the figures of speech used in the article, which induced hatred of State authorities, could potentially lead to an escalation of the situation and the spreading of false information in respect of the criminal proceedings, and ultimately to panic among the population and a repeat of similar events. 35.     The applicant lodged a further appeal, reiterating his previous arguments and disagreeing with the appellate court’s assessment by arguing that the third article did not contain any calls or incitement to panic, but merely a subjective assessment by a journalist of events happening in the country. 36 .     By a final decision of 20 December 2018 (delivered to the applicant on 11 February 2019) the Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s judgments. As to the applicant’s argument that in the absence of any defamation claims or complaints made by any allegedly affected persons or any existing court judgments in that regard, the MTCHT had no right to allege that the impugned articles contained libellous information (see paragraph 33 above), the Supreme Court noted that Articles 13-3.1 and 13-3.2 of the IIPI Law vested the MTCHT with the authority to identify prohibited content on its own initiative and not necessarily only on the basis of prior submissions by affected persons, and to apply for a court order restricting access to the relevant internet information resource in the event that the prohibited content which had been identified was not removed following a written warning. 24SAAT.ORG LTD AND ALAKBAROV v.   AZERBAIJAN , APPLICATION No. 51207/19 37.     The applicant company, 24Saat.org, is a mass media company operating an online news portal, az24saat.org. The individual applicant, Mr   Vugar Alakbarov, a journalist, is the sole founder of the applicant company and the editor of az24saat.org. 38.     On 6 August 2018 the MTCHT sent a warning letter to the applicants’ email address, noting that a number of articles published by az24saat.org contained libellous, false and misleading information and warning them that if those articles were not removed from the website within eight hours, the MTCHT would apply to a court for a blocking order, in accordance with the IIPI Law. It appears that the applicants did not remove the articles in issue. 39 .     Following this, the MTCHT applied to the Sabail District Court for a blocking order, submitting that az24saat.org had published information prohibited by Article 13-2.3.9 of the IIPI Law and Article 13-2.3.11 of the IIPI Law in conjunction with Article 10 of the Law on Mass Media. According to subsequent arguments raised by the applicants before the domestic courts, the MTCHT applied for a blocking order on the same day that it issued the warning, and before the expiry of the eight-hour period referred to in that warning. 40 .     In its application for a blocking order, the MTCHT referred to four particular articles published by az24saat.org in February, May and August 2018, extracts from which were quoted in the first-instance court’s judgment. All four articles concerned the same public official who held the position of Assistant to the President. The articles contained various statements about him, including comments saying that he would be dismissed from his position and appointed to another one, that he had been “attacked” by another unnamed influential official, that he had given false information to the President about a particular subject, and that he had been involved in a struggle with a certain political “clan” over control of the media in the country. 41.     By a judgment of 7 August 2018 the Sabail District Court granted the MTCHT’s application and ordered that access to the website be blocked. According to the individual applicant, he was informed of the time and place of the hearing only about three or four hours in advance. At the court hearing, the applicants’ lawyer asked the court to adjourn the examination of the case for one or two days so that the applicants’ defence could be prepared, but that application was refused. 42 .     The court considered that the above-mentioned information (see paragraph 40 above) constituted information prohibited by Article 13-2.3.11 of the IIPI Law and Article 10 of the Law on Mass Media, and issued an order blocking access to the website, to be executed immediately following the delivery of the judgment. In response to the applicants’ argument that in the absence of any defamation claims or complaints made by any allegedly affected persons or any existing court judgments in that regard, the MTCHT had no right to allege that the impugned articles contained libellous information, the court noted that Article 13-3.1 of the IIPI Law vested the MTCHT with the authority to identify prohibited content on its own initiative. 43 .     In appeals to higher courts, the applicants raised arguments which were essentially similar to those made by the applicant in application no.   48735/19 (see paragraphs 32-33 above). 44.     On 17 September 2018 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the applicants and upheld the lower court’s judgment, essentially reiterating its reasoning. By a final decision of 24 January 2019 (delivered to the applicant on 18   March 2019) the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ judgments. KHURAL AND ZEYNALOV v. AZERBAIJAN , APPLICATION No.   58694/19 45.     The first applicant,   Khural , is a newspaper published in Baku which operates a website, xural.com. The second applicant, Mr Avaz Zeynalov, is the founder and editor-in-chief of   the newspaper. 46 .     On 7 August 2018 the MTCHT sent a warning letter to the applicants’ email address, noting that a number of articles published by xural.com contained defamatory, false and misleading information and warning them that if those articles were not removed from the website within eight hours, the MTCHT would apply to a court for a blocking order, in accordance with the IIPI Law. According to the second applicant, he had not used that email address for several years and was therefore unaware of the warning letter until the court hearing. 47 .     On the same day, the MTCHT applied to the Sabail District Court for a blocking order, submitting that xural.com had published information prohibited by Article 13-2.3.9 of the IIPI Law and Article 13-2.3.11 of the IIPI Law in conjunction with Article 10 of the Law on Mass Media. Having received a summons for the court hearing, on 8 August 2018, before going to the court, the applicant made a telephone call to the MTCHT to enquire which specific articles were considered to be in breach of the IIPI Law. After being informed about three particular articles, he immediately removed those articles from xural.com. 48 .     It appears that in its application for a blocking order the MTCHT actually referred to four articles published by xural.com in July and August 2018, extracts from which were quoted in the first-instance court’s judgment. The first article concerned the Deputy Prime Minister of Nakhchivan’s alleged extramarital relations, and very expensive gifts which he had allegedly given to a woman. The second article criticised a particular hospital in Baku for mistreating patients, and apparently referred to it as a “morgue” for that reason. The third article concerned E.V., Head of the Ganja City Executive Authority, on whom there had been an assassination attempt before the Ganja riots. It stated that E.V. had insulted the local population and persecuted Shia Muslims, and that he had an open conflict with the top regional police officer and had been beaten up by the latter after behaving indecently. The last article spoke about “more than 160 political prisoners”, and named several convicted and imprisoned youth activists and politicians, implying that some of them had not committed any criminal offences and that others had not been treated well in prison. 49 .     By a judgment of 8   August 2018 the Sabail District Court granted the   MTCHT’s application. The court found that the statements made in the above ‑ mentioned articles constituted information prohibited by Article   13 ‑ 2.3.11 of the IIPI Law in conjunction with Article 10 of the Law on Mass Media, and issued an order blocking access to the website, to be executed immediately following the delivery of the judgment. In response to the applicants’ argument that in the absence of any defamation claims or complaints made by any allegedly affected persons or any existing court judgments in that regard, the MTCHT had no right to allege that the impugned articles contained libellous information, the court noted that Article 13 ‑ 3.1 of the IIPI Law vested the MTCHT with the authority to identify prohibited content on its own initiative. 50.     In appeals to higher courts, the applicants raised arguments which were essentially similar to those made by the applicants in applications nos.   48735/19 and 51207/19 (see paragraphs 32-33 and 43 above). 51.     On 17 September 2018 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the applicants and upheld the lower court’s judgment, essentially reiterating its reasoning. By a final decision of 21 February 2019 (delivered to the applicant on 18   April 2019) the Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s judgment. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW 52.     The 1995 Constitution provides as follows: Article 47.     Freedom of thought and speech “I.     Everyone enjoys the freedom of thought and speech. II.     No one shall be forced to proclaim or to repudiate his or her thoughts and beliefs. ...” Article 50. Freedom of information “I.     Everyone is free to legally seek, receive, impart, produce and disseminate any information. II.     Freedom of mass information is guaranteed. State censorship of the mass media, including the press, is prohibited. III.     Everyone’s right to refute or reply to information published in the mass media which violates his or her rights or is damaging to his or her interests shall be guaranteed.” 53.     The Constitutional Law regulating the implementation of human rights and freedoms in the Republic of Azerbaijan of 24 December 2002 provides as follows: Article 3.     Requirements for the lawful restriction of human rights and freedoms “3.1.     Human rights and freedoms provided for by the Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan and international treaties to which the Republic of Azerbaijan is a party may be restricted only by law. ... 3.4.     Restrictions on human rights or freedoms shall pursue a legitimate aim provided for by the Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan and this Constitutional Law, and shall be proportionate to that aim.” 54 .     At the material time, the IIPI Law provided as follows: Article 13-2.     Dissemination of information in internet information resources “13-2.1.     The owner of an internet information resource is independent in determining the content of the information placed in that information resource and the rules relating to the placement [of such information]. The owner of the internet information resource and its domain name must ensure the lawful functioning of that information resource, and is personally responsible for that. ... 13-2.3.     The owner of the internet information resource and its domain name shall not allow the following information to be placed in that internet information resource: ... 13-2.3.2.     information promoting violence and religious extremism, an open incitement to ethnic, racial or religious hatred and hostility, a forcible change in the constitutional order of the State, a violation of the State’s territorial integrity, the forcible seizure or retention of State power, [or] the organisation of mass riots; ... 13-2.3.9.     information of an insulting and libellous nature, as well as information breaching the inviolability of private life; ... 13-2.3.11.     other information prohibited by the laws of the Republic of Azerbaijan. 13-2.4.     The owner of an internet information resource and its domain name shall ensure that information whose dissemination is prohibited is removed from the information resource when the owner discovers such information in the resource or is informed about it. 13-2.5.     When a host provider discovers or is informed about information placed in its information systems whose dissemination by internet information resources is prohibited, it shall immediately take measures to have the owner of the internet information resource remove that information.” Article 13-3.     Preventing the placement in internet information resources of information whose dissemination is prohibited “13-3.1.     When the relevant executive authority discovers that information whose dissemination is prohibited has been placed in an internet information resource, or identifies [such information] on the basis of substantiated submissions by individuals, legal entities or State authorities, it shall give a written warning to the owner of the internet information resource and its domain name, and to the host provider. 13-3.2.     If the information whose dissemination is prohibited is not removed from the internet information resource within eight hours of the warning, the relevant executive authority shall apply to the [relevant] district (city) court for an order restricting access to the internet information resource. 13-3.3.     In urgent cases that threaten the State or public interests protected by law, or give rise to a real danger to people’s lives or health, access to the internet information resource shall be temporarily restricted by a decision of the relevant executive authority. 13-3.4.     When the relevant executive authority takes a decision provided for in Article   13-3.3 of this Law, it shall simultaneously [ eyni zamanda ] apply to the court for an order restricting access to the internet information resource. The decision temporarily restricting access to the internet information resource shall remain in force until the court has examined the application for the restriction of access, or until the annulment of that decision. 13-3.5.     The court shall examine the application for the restriction of access to the internet information resource and deliver a decision within five days. The decision shall be immediately enforceable, and an appeal lodged against it shall not suspend its execution. ...” 55 .     Articles 10 and 44 of the Law on Mass Media of 7 December 1999 provided as follows: Article 10.     Prohibition of abuse of freedom of mass information “The mass media shall not be used for the purposes of disseminating secret information protected by the legislation of the Republic of Azerbaijan; forcibly changing the existing constitutional State order; attacking the integrity of the State; promoting war, violence and brutality, [or] ethnic, racial [or] social hostility or intolerance; publishing rumours discrediting the honour and dignity of citizens [and] false and misleading written [material] ( yalan və qərəzli yazılar ) [under the guise of being] a reliable source ...; libelling [somebody]; or committing other illegal acts.” Article 44. The right to a retraction, correction and reply “44.1.     In the event that [the following information] is published in the mass media – information of a libellous and offensive nature which discredits the honour and dignity of an individual or a legal entity or distorts [his or her] opinions – the individual or his representative, and the management or authorised representative of a legal entity, have the right to demand, within one month, that a reply, retraction or correction of the false information, and an apology, be published in that mass media source within one month, or to apply directly to a court. ...” 56.     Article 23 of the 2000 Civil Code provided as follows: Article 23. Protection of honour, dignity and professional reputation “23.1.     An   individual is entitled to obtain, by way of a court order, a retraction of information harming his or her honour, dignity or professional reputation, disclosing secrets relating to his or her private or family life, or breaching his or her personal or family inviolability, provided that the person who disseminated such information fails to prove that the information was true. The same rule shall also apply in cases of incomplete publication of factual information if, as a result, the honour, dignity or professional reputation of an individual is harmed ... 23.2.     If   information harming the honour, dignity or professional reputation of an individual or invading the secrecy of his or her private or family life is disseminated in the mass media, the information shall be retracted in the same mass media source ... 23.3.     If the mass media publish information breaching an individual’s rights and interests protected by law, that individual has the right to publish his or her reply in the same mass media source. 23.4.     In   addition to the right to seek a retraction of information harming his or her honour, dignity or professional reputation, the individual has the right to claim compensation for damage caused by the dissemination of such information ...” 57 .     Chapter 40-6 (Articles 355-20   to 355-22) of the CCP regulated court procedure on the removal from an internet information resource of information whose dissemination was prohibited, or the restriction of access to an internet information resource. The provisions of Chapter 40-6 were enacted by an amendment of 7 April 2017 and entered into force on 20 April 2017. In the event that the relevant executive authority (the MTCHT) determined that information prohibited by the IIPI Law had been placed in an internet information resource, an application for the removal of the prohibited information from the internet information resource or for the restriction of access to the internet information resource or the relevant part thereof was to be lodged by the relevant executive authority (the MTCHT) with a court which had territorial jurisdiction over the relevant executive authority’s location (Article 355-20). The application had to specify the grounds provided for by law for such a removal or restriction of access, information about the internet information resource, measures taken prior to the court procedure, and the applicant authority’s application (Article 355-21). The   court would examine the application and deliver a judgment within five days after the date of lodging the application (Article 355-22.1). The   interested parties would be notified of the hearing, but if they failed to appear this would not prevent the court from examining the case in their absence (Article   355 ‑ 22.2). The court would deliver a judgment either granting or refusing the application (Article   355-22.3). The judgment would become enforceable immediately and an appeal against it would not suspend its execution (Article 355-22.4). RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL DOCUMENTS 58.     The relevant international documents are summarised and quoted in Ahmet Yıldırım v. Turkey (no. 3111/10, §§ 19-30, ECHR 2012), and OOO   Flavus and Others v. Russia (nos.   12468/15 and 2 others, § 13-17, 23   June 2020). THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 59.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment (Rule   42 § 1 of the Rules of Court). ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 OF THE CONVENTION 60.     The applicants complained that the authorities’ decisions to block access to their websites had breached their rights under Article 10 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “1.     Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2.     The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.” Admissibility Compliance with the six-month time-limit in application no.   48735/19 61.     The Government submitted that the date on which the application had been dispatched could not be clearly established from the copy of the case file transmitted to them. A receipt stamp visible on the application form showed that the application had been received by the Court on 17 September 2019. According to the Government, since delivery by post took approximately ten to twenty days, the application must have been dispatched towards the end of August or the beginning of September 2019. For these reasons, the Government argued that the applicant had failed to comply with the six-month time-limit, since the final decision of the Supreme Court had been delivered to him on 11 February 2019. 62.     The applicant submitted that the application had been dispatched on 10   August 2019 and provided the relevant postal tracking number. 63.     The Court notes that the original envelope which contained the application form is postmarked 10 August 2019. That date was within the six ‑ month time-limit, which started to run on 11 February 2019. For this re