CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 janvier 2023

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 13 February 2023   FIRST SECTION Application no. 54792/16 Gultakin HAJIBEYLI against Azerbaijan lodged on 4 September 2016 communicated on 24 January 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant, a former member of the parliament and currently an opposition politician, brought a private prosecution claim for defamation against M.M., her former spouse. It appears that on 17 May 2013 M.M. held a press conference, following which several articles were published by various newspapers and websites where the applicant appeared to be accused of abusing her power while on duty in the parliament, corruption, unduly influencing domestic courts in the private property dispute between her and M.M. and in the proceedings concerning the latter’s contact rights with their child and so on. The first-instance court dismissed the applicant’s claim holding mainly that M.M. was not the author of the articles published and that expressions used by him during the press conference were not defamatory, but “critical”. By a final judgment of 4 March 2016 the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ judgments. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the domestic courts failed to protect her right to reputation.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention? (see, for instance, Yakup   Saygılı v.   Turkey (dec.), no. 42914/16, §§ 34-46, 11   July 2017)?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her private life, in particular, her personal honour and reputation, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention?