CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 juin 2022

.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 } Published on 18 July 2022   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 39834/16 Alayif Hasan oglu HASANOV against Azerbaijan lodged on 29 June 2016 communicated on 29 June 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the criminal conviction of the applicant, a lawyer specialising in protection of human rights, for defamation of N.H., the cellmate of the applicant’s client (a human rights defender and civil society activist) at the time of the events. It appears that the applicant had shared a post on Facebook about alleged harassment of his client by N.H., which was later published in a newspaper. By a judgment of 6 November 2014, the Yasamal District Court convicted the applicant under Article 147.1 of the Criminal Code (slander) and sentenced him to 240 hours’ community work. His request to question his client as a witness was dismissed by the appellate court. By a final judgment of 29 December 2015 the Supreme Court upheld his conviction. Relying on Articles 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d), 10 and 18 of the Convention, the applicant complains about violation of his Convention rights. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention? In particular, has there been a breach of the applicant’s right to a fair trial with regard to his right to a reasoned decision, and with regard to the opportunity he had to obtain the examination of relevant witnesses?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, contrary to Article   10 of the Convention? In particular, was the interference justified in terms of Article 10 §   2? Was the sanction imposed on the applicant proportionate to the aims pursued (see Cumpǎnǎ and Mazǎre v.   Romania [GC], no.   33348/96, ECHR 2004 ‑ XI, and Mahmudov and   Agazade v. Azerbaijan , no. 35877/04, 18 December 2008)?   3.     Were the restrictions imposed by the State in the present case, purportedly pursuant to Article 10 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by that provision, contrary to Article   18 of the Convention?