CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } Published on 15 May 2023   FIRST SECTION Application no. 45735/21 Bahruz Front oglu BAYRAMOV against Azerbaijan lodged on 4 September 2021 communicated on 25 April 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the filming of the applicant when he was stopped by the traffic police for alleged drink-driving, and then when he was later taken to a police station, and dissemination of that footage on television and on the Internet. The administrative offence proceedings brought against the applicant for drink‑driving were eventually discontinued by the police authorities. The applicant, who is a lawyer, brought proceedings against the relevant traffic police department complaining that the dissemination of the above-mentioned footage was unlawful, and claiming, inter alia , pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. By a final judgment of 1 April 2020 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s claims, finding in essence that the applicant failed to prove that the said footage had been disseminated by the police. Relying on Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the unlawful filming of him and dissemination of that footage breached his right to respect for his private life and that the domestic courts’ judgments in his case were not properly reasoned.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     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 the applicant’s right to a reasoned decision respected?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, 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?