CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 octobre 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 } Communicated on 11 October 2019   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 383/12 KHURAL NEWSPAPER and Avaz ZEYNALOV against Azerbaijan lodged on 13 December 2011 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants are a newspaper and its chief editor. The application concerns civil defamation proceedings instituted against the applicants in connection with an article published in the applicant newspaper which criticised, among others, the executive director of the State Fund for Support of the Media (SFSM), following an event commemorating the 135th anniversary of the national media. On the occasion of that event, a number of journalists and newspapers had received awards and financial assistance from the State. The applicants were not among the recipients. Following the publication of the article, the executive director of the SFSM sued the applicants, claiming damages for defamation and public insult. The domestic courts upheld the claim, finding that the article contained baseless, defamatory and insulting expressions in respect of the claimant. The applicants were ordered to publish an apology and pay 5,000 Azerbaijani manats in damages. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35   §   1 of the Convention? In particular, did the applicants invoke before the national authorities, at least in substance, the rights under Article 10 on which they now wish to rely before the Court and, more specifically, did they raise before the national authorities their grievances in respect of the part of their complaint concerning the alleged excessive amount of the award for damages?   2.     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 prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   10 §   2 in pursuit of a legitimate aim? Was the amount of compensation for damages awarded in the present case in compliance with the requirement of proportionality?   3.     The parties are requested to submit a full translation into English or French of the impugned article.