CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 janvier 2024

.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 } .s3B53EBCA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s96D82958 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Published on 29 January 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 1166/19 Anar MAMMADOV against Azerbaijan lodged on 21 December 2018 communicated on 9 January 2024   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a journalist and editor-in-chief of an online news portal. Y.G., who was a schoolteacher, initiated civil defamation proceedings against the applicant and five others who had published an article on their online news portals containing allegations that Y.G. had had an intimate relation with her student and got pregnant. 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from responsibility if “false information” published by them had been taken from other mass media sources and had not been retracted.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 article had been published by another news portal first, which was also a respondent in the proceedings, before it was published on his portal. By a final decision of 28 June 2018, the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ judgments and ordered all the respondents to pay AZN 40,000 (approximately EUR 20,400 at the material time) jointly to Y.G. in respect of non-pecuniary damage and to publish an official retraction. Relying on Articles 6 and 10 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the domestic proceedings were unfair, particularly, that the courts did not address his arguments about exemption from responsibility, and that the courts’ judgments breached his right to freedom of expression as a journalist.     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 under Article 62.3 of the Law on Mass Media which was in force at the relevant time? 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? Were the sanctions imposed on the applicant proportionate to the aims pursued (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 article published by the applicant.