CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 septembre 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 } Published on 25 September 2023   FIRST SECTION Application no. 24129/17 Miralam HASHIMOV against Azerbaijan lodged on 14 March 2017 communicated on 5 September 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns civil defamation proceedings against the applicant, journalist and editor-in-chief of an online news portal, instituted by H.R., Head of the Masalli District Executive Authority (“MDEA”). In 2015, the applicant published three articles that contained, respectively, allegations about embezzlement of public funds in the MDEA, information about some trees having been cut in the district allegedly on the orders of H.R., and information about a person who had allegedly said that H.R. had told her to kill herself if she could not pay a bill. In his submissions to the domestic courts, the applicant, among other things, referred to Article 62.3 of the Law on Mass Media, which was in force at that time, which exempted journalists and editors from responsibility if “false information” published by them had been taken from other mass media sources and had not been retracted. He submitted that the information provided in the third article had been published by another news portal before it had been published on his portal. By a final decision of 28 November 2016, the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ judgments ordering the applicant to publish a retraction and to pay 500 Azerbaijani manats (approximately 300 euros at the material time) to H.R. as compensation for damage caused to his reputation. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 and Article 10 of the Convention that the proceedings were unfair and that the domestic courts’ decisions violated his right to freedom of expression. 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 in connection with arguments concerning the exemption from liability in respect of the third article under Article 62.3 of the Law on Mass Media which was in force at the relevant time (see Zayidov v.   Azerbaijan (no. 2), no. 5386/10, §§   98-99, 24 March 2022)?   2.     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 the interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   10   §   2 in pursuit of a legitimate aim (see Azadliq and Zayidov v.   Azerbaijan , no. 20755/08, §   50, 30 June 2022)?   The parties are requested to submit a translation into English or French of the impugned articles published by the applicant.