CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 avril 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 } .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 } .s96D82958 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify }   Published on 24 April 2023   FIRST SECTION Application no. 30551/18 Aytaj Soltan gizi AHMADOVA against Azerbaijan lodged on 11 June 2018 communicated on 3 April 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged failure by the domestic authorities to examine the applicant’s complaints about dissemination of her private photos and videos on Facebook, accompanied by insults and threats addressed to her. The applicant, who is a journalist, alleged that those photos and videos were stored in her computer, which was seized by the officers of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in the framework of the criminal investigation in respect of Meydan TV, the media organisation she worked for and which was kept since then by the investigation department on grave crimes under the Prosecutor General’s Office. It appears that on 14 October 2016, 14 February 2017 and 29 September 2017 the applicant addressed complaints to the Prosecutor General’s Office but received no reply. The applicant then lodged a complaint with the Sabail District Court under judicial supervision proceedings complaining about the prosecuting authority’s refusal to institute criminal proceedings and asked the court to oblige the Prosecutor General’s Office to initiate criminal proceedings in respect of her complaints. The first-instance court rejected the applicant’s complaint holding that there was no information about any such decision. By a final decision of 11 December 2017 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s decision, adding that the applicant failed to submit proof showing that her above-mentioned complaints had actually been sent and delivered to the relevant authority. The applicant mainly complains that the domestic authorities’ failure to examine her complaints about dissemination of her photos and videos, which was allegedly linked to her journalistic work, breached her rights under Articles 8, 10 and 13 of the Convention.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her private life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, has there been an interference by the State with the applicant’s right, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2? Did the situation give rise to the State’s positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention? If so, have those obligations been complied with (compare Khadija Ismayilova v. Azerbaijan , nos. 65286/13 and 57270/14, 10   January 2019)?   2.     Has there been an interference by the State with the applicant’s freedom of expression, in particular her right to receive and impart information and ideas, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention?   If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2? Did the situation give rise to the State’s positive obligations under Article 10 of the Convention? If so, have those obligations been complied with?   3.     Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaints under Articles 8 and 10, as required by Article   13 of the Convention? 4.     The parties are requested to provide relevant documentary evidence in support of their submissions.