CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 décembre 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8F670191 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .s4EFEAD { width:14.32pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block }   Communicated on 7 December 2016   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 42845/10 Azer Seyfali oglu MEHTIYEV against Azerbaijan and 10 other applications (see list appended) STATEMENT OF FACTS A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. A.     Mehtiyev v. Azerbaijan , application no. 42845/10, lodged on 21   July 2010 The applicant, Mr Azer Mehtiyev, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1967 and lives in Baku. He is represented before the Court by Mr   R.   Hajili and Mr F.   Namazli, lawyers practising in Azerbaijan. The applicant was the Chairman of the Public Union for Assistance in Economic Initiatives, a non-governmental organisation (NGO) dealing with various projects relating to social and economic issues. In particular, together with a number of other NGOs, it conducted research into the activities of large State-owned companies funded by the State budget. In connection with that project, on 27 February 2009 the applicant sent an information request to the State Oil Company of the Republic of Azerbaijan (SOCAR), a fully State-owned petroleum company whose management was directly appointed by the Head of State, which accounted for 4.2% of the GDP and 12.6% of the State budget revenues in 2008, and which actively engaged in a number of large investment projects in Azerbaijan and abroad. The applicant requested information about the following: (a)     SOCAR’s investment projects abroad in the preceding three years, including the value of those projects, funds already allocated to the projects, and the sources of such funding; (b)     credit agreements which SOCAR had in place, and the amount of foreign credit received; (c)     the amount of SOCAR’s charter capital, and the amount and sources of the funds allocated for increasing the charter capital in the preceding three years. By a letter of 11 March 2009 one of SOCAR’s vice-presidents refused to provide the requested information, noting that, under Article 9 of the Law on Access to Information, SOCAR was not an “information holder” obliged by law to provide access to the type of information sought by the applicant. The applicant lodged an action with the Sabayil District Court. Arguing, inter alia , that SOCAR was a “legal entity performing public functions” under Article 9.1.2 of the Law on Access to Information, and therefore an “information holder” obliged to provide access to information of public interest, he asked the court to order SOCAR to provide the requested information. By a judgment of 17 April 2009 the Sabayil District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. The applicant appealed, reiterating his arguments. On 8 September 2009 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal. Following a further appeal by the applicant, on 21 January 2010 the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ judgments. B.     The Public Union for Assistance in Economic Initiatives v.   Azerbaijan , application no. 48460/11, lodged on 20 July 2011 The applicant association, registered in 2006 and based in Baku, is an NGO dealing with various projects relating to social and economic issues. It is represented before the Court by Mr R.   Hajili and Mr F.   Namazli, lawyers practising in Azerbaijan. On 28 April 2010 the applicant association submitted an information request to the Cabinet of Ministers, requesting a copy of the Cabinet of Ministers’ Order no. 19s dated 28 January 2010, which provided for funds allocated under the 2010 State budget for State capital investments to be distributed to organisations and designated purposes. According to the applicant, this accounted for up to 35% of the State budget expenditure. Having received no response, the applicant association lodged an action with the Sabayil District Court, and asked the court to order the Cabinet of Ministers to provide access to the requested information. By a judgment of 29 July 2010 the Sabayil District Court dismissed the applicant association’s claim. The judgment contained only citations of a number of domestic legal provisions, and did not contain any legal reasoning. The applicant association appealed. On 12 October 2010 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicant association had not provided any proof of its reasons for needing the requested information. Following a further appeal by the applicant association, on 25 January 2011 the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ judgments. C.     The Organisation for the Protection of Oil Workers’ Rights v.   Azerbaijan , no. 7211/12, lodged on 10 January 2012 The applicant association, established in 1996, registered in 2006 and based in Baku, is an NGO dealing with, inter alia , projects to ensure transparency in the spending of revenue from petroleum production, the protection of petroleum sector employees’ rights, and the assessment of the impact of petroleum companies’ activities on the environment. It is represented before the Court by Mr R.   Hajili and Mr F.   Namazli, lawyers practising in Azerbaijan. On 17 August 2010 the applicant association sent a request to SOCAR for information on how SOCAR subsidiaries disposed of “produced water” obtained as a by-product of the petroleum production process, and how SOCAR affiliates contained and subsequently neutralised the sludge produced during complex drilling works at hydrocarbon deposits located at sea and on land. By a letter of 25 August 2010 one of SOCAR’s vice-presidents refused to provide the requested information, noting that, under Article 9 of the Law on Access to Information, SOCAR was not an “information holder” obliged by law to provide access to the type of information sought by the applicant association. The applicant association lodged an action with the Sabayil District Court. Arguing, inter alia , that SOCAR was a “legal entity performing public functions” under Article 9.1.2 of the Law on Access to Information, and therefore an “information holder” obliged to provide access to information of public interest, the applicant association asked the court to order SOCAR to provide the requested information. By a judgment of 27 October 2010 the Sabayil District Court dismissed the applicant association’s claim. The applicant association appealed, reiterating its arguments. On 15   February 2011 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed its appeal. Following a further appeal by the applicant association, on 11 July 2011 the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ judgments. D.     Agaliyev v. Azerbaijan , no. 8135/12, lodged on 21 December 2011 The applicant, Mr Khalid Agaliyev, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1977 and lives in Baku. He is represented before the Court by Mr   R.   Hajili and Mr F.   Namazli, lawyers practising in Azerbaijan. The applicant was working as a lawyer at the Media Rights Institute, an NGO dealing with various projects relating to freedom of information and freedom of expression. On 17 February 2010 the applicant sent an information request to the Azerbaijan Television and Radio Broadcasting Closed Joint-Stock Company (AzTV), a State-owned broadcasting company fully funded by the State budget. He requested information on the following: (a)     the amount of funding allocated to AzTV from the State budget in 2009; (b)     the amount allocated from AzTV’s budget in 2009 for its employees’ salaries; (c)     the size of the monthly salaries of AzTV’s various management personnel; (d)     the amount allocated from AzTV’s budget in 2009 for purchasing and repairing its transport vehicles and providing them with fuel; (e)     the amount allocated from AzTV’s budget in 2009 for the repair of AzTV’s main building and other buildings belonging to it; (f)     the amount allocated from AzTV’s budget in 2009 for the maintenance of its website. Having received no response, the applicant lodged an action with the Sabayil District Court. He argued that, as a State-owned company, AzTV was required under the Law on Access to Information to provide access to information concerning the expenditure of funds from the State budget and other public budgets, and asked the court to order AzTV to disclose the information sought by him. While the action was ongoing, by a letter of 27 April 2010 AzTV responded to the applicant’s request, noting that AzTV had received 30,103,665 Azerbaijani manats (AZN) from the State budget in 2009, and that this information had been published in official newspapers. It further noted that the applicant had not submitted his identity document in accordance with the requirements of the Law on Access to Information, and that, in such cases, an “information holder” could refuse to provide access to information. In any event, AzTV refused to disclose the rest of the information requested by the applicant, noting that its financial statements constituted confidential commercial information under the Law on Access to Information and the Law on Commercial Confidentiality. By a judgment of 23 July 2010 the Sabayil District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim, agreeing with AzTV’s position that its financial statements constituted confidential commercial information. The applicant appealed, arguing that the first-instance court had misinterpreted the provisions of the Law on Commercial Confidentiality, and that, under the Law on Access to Information, State-owned companies were obliged to disclose information on the use of funds allocated to them from the State budget. On 1 February 2011 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the first-instance court’s judgment. Following a further appeal, on 21 June 2011 the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ judgments. E.     The Media Rights Institute v. Azerbaijan , no. 33394/12, lodged on 30 March 2012 The applicant association, registered in 2006 and based in Baku, is an NGO dealing with various projects relating to freedom of information and freedom of expression. It is represented by Mr R.   Hajili and Ms   Z.   Sadigova, lawyers practising in Azerbaijan. On 24 June 2009, using his right of legislative initiative, the President of the Republic submitted to the National Assembly a draft Law on additions and amendments to the Law on Electric Power, the Law on Gas Supply and the Law on Water Supply and Waste Water (“the Draft Law”). In particular, the Draft Law provided for changes to the legislation exempting both individuals and legal entities from expenses related to the installation of electric, gas and water meters in homes and offices. The Draft Law was first examined by the National Assembly’s Permanent Committee on Natural Resources, the Energy Industry and Ecology (“the Committee”). On 30 September 2009 the Draft Law was submitted for plenary discussion at the National Assembly, and was adopted by the required majority of votes by members of parliament. The adopted Draft Law was sent to the President for his signature, and entered into force after its publication. According to the applicant association, after publication, it became apparent that the text of the Draft Law adopted by the National Assembly and the text sent to the President for his signature were not the same. In particular, the text sent to the President for his signature omitted the exemption for legal entities. The matter was extensively discussed in the press. According to the applicant association, the Speaker of the National Assembly admitted to one of the members of parliament that, after the adoption of the Draft Law, its text had been changed by the Committee. This amended text had then been sent to the President for his signature. According to the applicant association, the Chairman of the Committee had also indirectly admitted this fact. On 22 April 2010 the applicant association sent an information request to the National Assembly, requesting both the official text of the Draft Law adopted at the National Assembly plenary session of 30 September 2009 and the text of the Draft Law sent to the President for his signature. It also requested an explanation as to whether there had been a meeting of the Committee after the plenary session and, if so, requested access to the meeting’s minutes. The National Assembly did not respond. The applicant association lodged an action with the Sabayil District Court, asking it to order the National Assembly to provide access to the information sought. While the action was ongoing, the National Assembly provided the applicant association with the requested texts, as well as the minutes of the Committee meeting that had taken place before the plenary session. By a judgment of 19 November 2010 the Sabayil District Court dismissed the applicant association’s claim, finding that the National Assembly had provided the requested documents. As to the requested explanation about the alleged meeting of the Committee after the plenary session, the court noted that the applicant association had failed to provide any proof that such a meeting had taken place. The applicant association appealed, arguing that the National Assembly had not provided any response to the part of its request concerning an explanation as to whether there had been a meeting of the Committee after the plenary session. On 27 April 2011 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant association’s appeal. Following a further appeal, on 30 September 2011 the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ judgments. F.     Hajiyev v. Azerbaijan , no. 19925/12, lodged on 5 March 2012, and Hajiyev v. Azerbaijan , no. 47532/13, lodged on 10 January 2013 The applicant, Mr Rovshan Hajiyev, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1961 and lives in Saatli. He is represented before the Court by Mr   R.   Hajili and Ms Z.   Sadigova, lawyers practising in Azerbaijan. The applicant was a journalist and editor of the newspaper Azadliq . Gabala Radar Station, which first became operational in 1985, was a Soviet military early warning radar located in the Gabala region of Azerbaijan. It had a range of about 6,000 km and was designed to detect missile launches from as far away as the Indian Ocean. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the station became the property of Azerbaijan, but was operated by Russia under a lease agreement. In 2012 the station was closed and all equipment was transported to Russia. By decrees of 26 February 2001 and 20 June 2003 the President of Azerbaijan ordered an assessment of the station’s impact on the environment and public health, and appointed the Azerbaijani side of a joint Azerbaijani-Russian commission to monitor public health and the environment in connection with the station’s activity (“the Commission”). The Minister of Healthcare was appointed as Chairman of the Commission. According to the applicant, independent studies showed that the station caused serious public health problems in the Gabala region and nearby regions. On 27 July 2010 the applicant sent an information request to the Ministry of Healthcare, inquiring whether the Commission was still active and requesting copies of the Commission’s reports concerning the station’s impact on the environment and public health. By a letter of 6 August 2010 the Ministry of Healthcare responded that a report prepared by the Commission in accordance with the presidential decree of 26 February 2001 had been sent to the Cabinet of Ministers. Considering that he had not been provided with the requested information, the applicant lodged an action with the Nasimi District Court, seeking a decision ordering the Ministry of Healthcare to provide a copy of the report. By a judgment of 3 February 2011 the Nasimi District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim, finding that the Ministry of Healthcare was no longer in possession of the report and that, by informing the applicant of this fact, it had complied with its obligation to disclose information under the Law on Access to Information. Following appeals by the applicant, on 2 May 2011 and 5 September 2011 respectively the Baku Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court upheld the first-instance court’s judgment. In the meantime, on 6 December 2010 the applicant had sent the same information request to the Cabinet of Ministers. He had received no response and had lodged an action with Baku Administrative Economic Court No. 1. By a judgment of 23 December 2011 Baku Administrative Economic Court No. 1 dismissed the applicant’s claim, finding that, under Article 29 of the Law on Access to Information, an “information holder” was not under an obligation to disclose the reports of commissions created for a specific purpose. The applicant appealed, arguing that, under the Law on Access to Information, the requested report did not belong to any categories of restricted information, and should therefore be made available as information of public interest. On 15 March 2012 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance judgment, as did the Supreme Court on 11 July 2012, following a further appeal. The Cabinet of Ministers sent no representatives to any of the court hearings and did not submit any oral or written pleadings. G.     Agazade v. Azerbaijan , no. 12328/12, lodged on 9 August 2011 The applicant, Mr Yashar Agazade, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1979 and lives in Baku. He is represented before the Court by Mr   R.   Hajili, a lawyer practising in Azerbaijan. The applicant was a journalist. In 2010 several regions of Azerbaijan suffered a natural disaster: large ‑ scale flooding of the Kura and Aras rivers. Properties belonging to a large number of residents were either destroyed or damaged. By a decree of 19 May 2010 the President created a special State commission on the natural disaster (“the State Commission”). The State Commission was instructed to implement complex measures with regard to rehabilitation of the affected regions, restoration of the regions’ economy and settlements, and monetary compensation of the victims by the State. The Prime Minister was appointed as its chairman. According to clause 2.4 of the decree, the State Commission was also instructed to ensure that the public was informed about the measures implemented. On 27 July 2010 the applicant submitted an information request to the State Commission and its chairman, the Prime Minister. The request was sent to the Prime Minister’s office at the Cabinet of Ministers. He requested information on, inter alia , the amounts of compensation to be paid to the victims, measures implemented in connection with the funds allocated from the State budget for the rehabilitation of the affected regions, and copies of any relevant reports. He also asked for a list of decisions taken by central executive authorities in connection with the rehabilitation project. The applicant received no response and lodged an action against the State Commission with the Sabayil District Court, asking it to order the State Commission to provide access to the requested information. By a decision of 18 October 2010 the Sabayil District Court refused to examine the claim on the merits and returned it to the applicant, finding that the State Commission was a temporarily created body which did not have the status of a legal entity and as such could not act as a defendant in court proceedings, in accordance with the law on civil procedure. Moreover, the court noted that the applicant had not specified whether the State Commission was still active. Following appeals by the applicant, where he argued that, under the Code of Civil Procedure and the Law on State Service, the State Commission was a State organ with capacity to act as a defendant in court, on 24 November 2010 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeals and upheld the first-instance court’s judgment, as did the Supreme Court on 11   February 2011. H.     The Public Union for Assistance to a Free Economy v. Azerbaijan , no. 12759/13, lodged on 28 January 2013 The applicant association, established in 2004, registered in 2006 and based in Baku, is an NGO advocating for transparency in the spending of public funds and a liberal economy. It is represented by Mr R.   Hajili and Ms   Z.   Sadigova, lawyers practising in Azerbaijan. On 16 July 2010 the applicant association sent an information request to AzTV, requesting exactly the same information as that requested in points (a) to (e) of the information request made by the applicant in Agaliyev v.   Azerbaijan , no. 8135/12 (see above). AzTV did not respond. The applicant association lodged an action with the Sabayil District Court, asking the court to find that AzTV’s failure to respond was unlawful and to order AzTV to comply with its obligation to provide access to the requested information. AzTV’s representative at the court hearing submitted that the requested information had not been provided because it constituted confidential commercial information. By a judgment of 22 November 2010 the Sabayil District Court dismissed the applicant association’s claim. The judgment contained only citations of a number of domestic legal provisions and did not contain any legal reasoning. The applicant association appealed. On 21 April 2011 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the applicant association’s claim in part, finding that AzTV’s failure to respond had been unlawful. It dismissed the remainder of the claim for an order that AzTV provide access to the information. The applicant association appealed. On 19 October 2011 the Supreme Court quashed the Baku Court of Appeal’s judgment and remitted the case, instructing the appellate court to examine the question of whether the requested information constituted confidential commercial information under domestic law. By a judgment of 17 February 2012 the Baku Court of Appeal allowed the applicant association’s appeal in full, finding that, under the domestic law, the requested information did not qualify as confidential commercial information and did not belong to any category of restricted information. Accordingly, the court ordered AzTV to provide the applicant association with access to the requested information. While the applicant association was taking steps to have the Baku Court of Appeal’s judgment of 17 February 2012 executed, AzTV lodged an appeal against that judgment, unbeknownst to the applicant association. By a decision of 26 July 2012 the Supreme Court quashed the Baku Court of Appeal’s judgment of 17 February 2012, finding that the appellate court’s finding that the requested information did not constitute confidential commercial information was based on an erroneous interpretation of the domestic law. The Supreme Court delivered a new decision, dismissing the applicant association’s claim in full. The applicant association had not been informed of AzTV’s appeal or the Supreme Court’s hearing, and as a result could not participate in that hearing. I.     The Public Union for Assistance to a Free Economy v. Azerbaijan , no. 27642/13, lodged on 11 March 2013 The applicant association, established in 2004, registered in 2006 and based in Baku, is an NGO advocating for transparency in the spending of public funds and a liberal economy. It is represented by Mr F.   Namazli, a lawyer practising in Azerbaijan. On 1 August 2011 the applicant association sent an information request to the Cabinet of Ministers in connection with the Rules on the drawing up, execution, monitoring and assessment of the State Investment Programme (“the Rules”), approved by Presidential Decree no. 239 of 17 March 2010. In particular, it (a) inquired whether, in accordance with clauses 2.1 and 2.2 of the presidential decree, the Cabinet of Ministers had prepared proposals on harmonising the current legislation with the presidential decree and the Rules; (b) further inquired whether, in accordance with clause 2.3 of the presidential decree, the Cabinet of Ministers had drawn up and approved the instructions on the assessment of the efficiency of State investment projects; and (c) requested copies of the relevant documents. Having received no response, the applicant association lodged an action with Baku Administrative Economic Court No. 1, asking the court to order the Cabinet of Ministers to provide access to the requested information. By a judgment of 22 December 2011 Baku Administrative Economic Court No. 1 dismissed the applicant association’s claim, finding that the requested information did not fall under the categories of information to be disclosed under Article 29 of the Law on Access to Information. The applicant association appealed, arguing that Article 29 of the Law on Access to Information only outlined the commonly requested categories of information which “information holders” had to disclose of their own accord. Even if the information requested in the case did not fall into one of those categories, it did not fall into any category of restricted information either. As such, and as information of public interest, access to the information should have been provided. On 5 June 2012 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant association’s appeal and upheld the first-instance court’s judgment. Upon further appeal, on 9 October 2012 the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ judgments. J.     Adilov v. Azerbaijan , no. 51856/14, lodged on 8 July 2014 The applicant, Mr Natig Adilov, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1979 and lives in Sabirabad. He is represented before the Court by Mr   R.   Hajili and Ms Z. Sadigova, lawyers practising in Azerbaijan. The applicant was a journalist. On 27 December 2012 he sent an information request to the Ministry of Finance, requesting a copy of the 2011 financial report of Baku State University (“BSU”), a university funded by the State budget. By a letter of 28 January 2013 the Ministry of Finance confirmed receipt of the request and noted that it was appropriate to send the request to BSU directly. However, the applicant’s attempts to obtain the information from BSU did not yield any results either, with BSU recommending that the applicant apply to the Ministry of Finance. The applicant lodged an action against the Ministry of Finance with Baku Administrative Economic Court No. 1. By a judgment of 29 May 2013 the court dismissed the applicant’s claim. It found that the ministry had acted lawfully and that, by responding to the applicant’s letter, it had complied with its obligations under the Law on Access to Information. The applicant appealed. By a judgment of 5 September 2013 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal. On 22 January 2014 the Supreme Court dismissed a further appeal by the applicant. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicants complain under Article 10 of the Convention that various authorities’ refusals to disclose information requested by them amounted to breaches of their right to access information of public interest. 2.     The applicants complain under Article 6 of the Convention that the domestic courts’ judgments in their respective cases were not adequately reasoned, because the courts failed to make a proper legal assessment of their arguments as required by domestic law. 3.     The applicant in application no. 12328/12 complains under Article 6 of the Convention that he had no right of access to court in relation to his complaint regarding the breach of his right to access information. 4.     The applicants in applications nos. 8135/12 and 12759/13 complain under Article 13 of the Convention, in conjunction with Articles 6 and 10 of the Convention, that the domestic remedies were not effective in practice in their cases, because AzTV was a media institution with close ties to the executive branch of the Government, and because the domestic courts were “completely dependent” on the executive.       common QUESTIONS 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression, in particular their right to receive and impart information, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention (see, in particular, Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary [GC], no. 18030/11, 8 November 2016)? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2?   2.     Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the proceedings in the present cases? If so, did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicants’ right to a reasoned decision respected, given the manner in which the domestic courts examined their arguments relying on the specific applicable provisions of the domestic law?       CASE-SPECIFIC QUESTIONS   Application no. 12328/12:   1.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     Has there been a breach of the applicant’s right of access to court, as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention? In particular, under domestic law, what was the legal status of the State Commission created in connection with the natural disaster involving the flooding of the Kura and Aras rivers? Did it have capacity to act as a defendant in judicial proceedings?   Applications nos. 8135/12 and 12759/13:   Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their Convention complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?       Appendix   No Application No Lodged on Applicant Date of birth, if applicable Place of residence or registration Principal representative   42845/10 21/07/2010 Azer MEHTIYEV 02/01/1967 Baku   Rashid HAJILI   48460/11 20/07/2011 PUBLIC UNION FOR ASSISTANCE IN ECONOMIC INITIATIVES Baku   Rashid HAJILI   7211/12 10/01/2012 ORGANISATION FOR THE PROTECTION OF OIL WORKERS’ RIGHTS Baku   Rashid HAJILI   8135/12 21/12/2011 Khalid AGALIYEV 26/04/1977 Baku   Rashid HAJILI   12328/12 09/08/2011 Yashar AGAZADE 30/09/1979 Baku   Rashid HAJILI   19925/12 05/03/2012 Rovshan HAJIYEV 06/01/1961 Saatli   Rashid HAJILI   33394/12 30/03/2012 MEDIA RIGHTS INSTITUTE Baku   Rashid HAJILI   12759/13 28/01/2013 PUBLIC UNION FOR ASSISTANCE TO A FREE ECONOMY Baku   Rashid HAJILI   27642/13 11/03/2013 PUBLIC UNION FOR ASSISTANCE TO A FREE ECONOMY Baku   Fariz NAMAZLI             47532/13 10/01/2013 Rovshan HAJIYEV 06/01/1961 Saatli   Rashid HAJILI             51856/14 08/07/2014 Natig ADILOV 15/04/1979 Sabirabad   Rashid HAJILI