CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 février 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 } Published on 6 March 2023   FIRST SECTION Application no. 28728/22 Fikrat Faramaz oglu IBISHBEYLI against Azerbaijan lodged on 25 May 2022 communicated on 15 February 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a journalist and the editor-in-chief of an online news portal. The application concerns administrative-offence proceedings against the applicant and a fine in the amount of 500 Azerbaijani manats (approximately 250 euros at the material time) imposed on him by the domestic courts on 12 January 2022. The measure concerned the publication on his website allegedly false information regarding a sensitive matter of the conflict in the Karabakh region on 11 January 2022, in violation of domestic law on information security. In that publication the applicant stated, without apparently having any source or evidence in support of the factual information he was disseminating, that since the evening of the day before, the city of Shusha was being continuously shelled by “Armenian separatists in Karabakh”. Relying on Article 10 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the interference with his right to freedom of expression by the State authorities was not justified. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article   10 §   1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law, did it pursue a legitimate aim, and was it necessary in a democratic society, in terms of Article   10 §   2?