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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 25 September 2023   FIRST SECTION Application no. 37282/18 Nazim MAMMADOV against Azerbaijan lodged on 16 July 2018 communicated on 5 September 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns criminal proceedings against the applicant, instituted under the procedure of private prosecution by H.A, the director of a privatised State-owned company, resulting in his criminal conviction for his allegedly defamatory speeches in several videos published on YouTube and in an article which quoted his speech and published by a news portal on Facebook. In particular, the applicant alleged that H.A. had committed serious criminal offences, such as bribery, embezzlement of public funds and tax evasion. By a judgment of 14 March 2017, the Lankaran District Court convicted the applicant under Article 147.2 (slander by accusation of having committed a serious or especially serious criminal offence) of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment. The appellate court reduced the sentence to ten months’ imprisonment. The conviction and sentence were upheld by the Supreme Court’s final decision of 10 April 2018. The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention that the domestic courts’ judgments violated his right to freedom of expression.   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 the interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   10 §   2 in pursuit of a legitimate aim? Was the sanction imposed on the applicant proportionate to the aims pursued (see Mahmudov and Agazade v.   Azerbaijan , no.   35877/04, §   51, 18 December 2008)?   The parties are requested to submit transcripts in English or French of extracts of the allegedly defamatory speeches of the applicant on videos published on YouTube and translations into English or French of the article published on Facebook which led to his criminal conviction.