CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 avril 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sD37F5C3B { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 17 May 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 257/12 Rasul Agahasan oglu JAFAROV and Others against Azerbaijan lodged on 25 November 2011 communicated on 28 April 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants are three individual applicants and a TV and radio broadcasting company. The second and third applicants are the founders of the applicant company. The first applicant (as an individual entrepreneur intending to broadcast under the name Alternative Radio ) and the applicant company, represented by the second and third applicants, participated together in a call for tenders announced by the National Television and Radio Commission (the “NTRC”) for a radio broadcasting licence. Their bids were refused, and the tender was awarded to another company. The applicants complain that the refusal to award them a licence, and the manner in which the domestic courts examined their claim against the NTRC challenging the results of the tender, had not been compliance with the requirements of Article 10 of the Convention, because, inter alia , the licensing and broadcasting legislation had not been precise and foreseeable and because, in any event, the selection procedure had been arbitrary as the NTRC’s decision had not been based on the relevant licensing criteria established by the legislation, and, moreover, the NTRC could not be considered as an independent regulatory body within the existing licensing system.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the refusal of the applicants’ bids for a radio broadcasting licence constitute 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? In particular, did the alleged interference in the present case fall within the State’s margin of appreciation in the realm of media licensing, to which reference is expressly made in Article 10 § 1?   If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in pursuit of a legitimate aim in terms of Article   10 §   2 of the Convention?