CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 décembre 2018

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s9A052872 { width:96.88%; border-collapse:collapse } .s40AC96BA { width:11.16%; 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 } .sCFC02D24 { width:18.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s9C202461 { width:11.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7277B24C { width:18.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s628756B { width:16.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s4665209 { width:24.34%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s55CA29BB { width:11.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s5D568D1E { margin-left:33.01pt; text-align:center; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt } .sEA94F144 { width:18.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5D04476A { width:11.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7E2F6F42 { width:18.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFBEE937D { width:16.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sEEC73F7D { width:24.34%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE2D594D1 { margin-left:33.01pt; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt }   Communicated on 4 December 2018   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 20755/08 AZADLIQ NEWSPAPER and Ganimat ZAYIDOV against Azerbaijan lodged on 26 March 2008 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns civil proceedings instituted against the applicants, a newspaper and its editor, in connection with an article titled “The Corruption Machine of the President’s Aid”, which alleged that T.A., a former aid to the former President, and his relatives owned numerous specifically listed properties obtained in a corrupt manner, including inter alia a football club, a restaurant, various commercial enterprises and plots of land. T.A. sued the newspaper and its editor, claiming that the information in the article was false and damaging to his reputation. The domestic courts ruled in the plaintiff’s favour, finding that the defendants had been unable to prove the veracity of their factual statements, and ordered the newspaper and its editor to pay compensation for non-pecuniary damage in the amounts of AZN 40,000 and AZN 25,000 respectively. In their appeals, the applicants argued inter alia that the domestic courts had failed to make a distinction between facts and value judgments and that the amounts awarded were exorbitant in view of their very modest incomes. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article   10 §   1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference justified in terms of Article   10 §   2? In particular, was the characterisation of the applicants’ utterances as statements of fact, rather than value judgments, justified? Were the amounts of compensation for damages awarded in the present case in compliance with the requirement of proportionality?   2.     The parties are requested to submit a detailed summary in English or French of the impugned article, as well as translations into English or French of the specific extracts of the impugned article which were found to be defamatory by the domestic courts.     No. Firstname LAST NAME Birth year Nationality Place of residence Representative   AZADLIQ - Newspaper registered in Azerbaijan Baku R. Hajili E.   Sadiqov   Ganimat Salim oglu ZAYIDOV 1963 Azerbaijani Baku R. Hajili E. Sadiqov