CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 septembre 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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 18 October 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 3197/14 Tural Ogtay oglu JAFAROV against Azerbaijan lodged on 17 December 2013 communicated on 27 September 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant was an opposition-oriented journalist. In 2011 videos with scenes of a private and intimate nature, which depicted separately the applicant and a colleague of his, and which had been secretly shot with a hidden camera placed in a hotel room shared by them while they had been attending a conference, were leaked on the internet. Shortly thereafter, the videos were shown on a private television channel as part of a programme during which, according to the applicant, the channel’s presenters made derogatory statements concerning him and his colleague. The applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the prosecuting authorities, requesting an investigation into the fact of secret filming of his private life. There is no information in the case file concerning the outcome of that complaint. The applicant further lodged a civil claim against the television channel, seeking a formal apology and compensation for damages. He argued that the broadcasting of the videos had been unlawful and damaging to his dignity and reputation and had infringed his rights to respect for his private life and to freedom of expression. Following a months-long suspension of the proceedings owing to the first-instance court’s request for a linguistic expert report, the court eventually dismissed the applicant’s claim, finding that it could not be established that the channel had breached the law and that the applicant had failed to prove that the contents of the programme in question had been damaging to his reputation and dignity. The first-instance judgment was upheld by higher courts, the final decision having been taken on 27 June 2013. The applicant’s complaints concern the civil proceedings. He complains, relying on Article 6 of the Convention, that the civil proceedings had been unfair and, relying on Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention, that the dismissal of his civil claim against the television channel constituted   a failure by the respondent State to comply with its positive obligations to protect his right to respect for his private life and reputation and his right to freedom of expression. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention? In particular, did the situation give rise to positive obligations on the State under Article 8 of the Convention and, if so, have they been complied with?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, contrary to Article   10 of the Convention? In particular, did the situation give rise to positive obligations on the State under Article 10 of the Convention and, if so, have they been complied with?   3.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was there a breach of his right to a reasoned decision and was the length of the civil proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement?