CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 septembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sBA17A864 { width:54.62%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sAC379087 { width:12.5%; padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s3FAB130A { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#f8f8f8 } .sAA4F161 { width:87.5%; padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .s1248679 { width:12.5%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2BE20866 { width:87.5%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF333AB99 { width:12.5%; padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e8e8e8 } .s49A024CF { width:87.5%; padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e8e8e8 } Communicated on 20 September 2019   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 36589/17 AZADLIG.INFO and others against Azerbaijan (see list attached) lodged on 21 June 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the blocking of the applicants’ websites and their inclusion in the list of information resources hosting prohibited information. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression, in particular their 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? (see, for example, Ahmet Yıldırım v. Turkey , no.   3111/10, ECHR   2012)     APPENDIX   No. Applicant’s Name   1.     AZADLIG.INFO   2.     AZERBAYCANSAATI.TV   3.     KANALTURAN.COM   4.     MEYDAN.TV