CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 novembre 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 } Published on 9 December 2024   THIRD SECTION Applications nos. 8188/22 and 9539/22 Ibrahim SALAMOV against Azerbaijan and Elchin HASANZADE against Azerbaijan lodged on 27 January 2022 and 25 January 2022 respectively communicated on 21 November 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants were co-defendants in the same set of criminal proceedings instituted under the procedure of private prosecution by S.M, the director of the Housing Maintenance and Utilities Union in Mingachevir, resulting in their criminal conviction for making allegedly defamatory posts about S.M. on Facebook. The first applicant had shared a photo depicting S.M. and two other men in front of a monument to which a photo of a historical figure (M.   A.   Rasulzade) had been affixed by someone. The first applicant, accusing S.M. of “treason”, had noted that S.M. disrespected M. A. Rasulzade by tearing his photo off the monument. He had also made some other statements in the post about S.M. The second applicant, a journalist, had written about the mentioned incident on Facebook. He had also accused S.M. of corruption, embezzlement, and some other criminal acts in subsequent posts and in an article published on a local news portal. By a judgment of 16 November 2020, the Mingachevir City Court convicted both applicants of the criminal offences under Articles 147 (libel) and 148 (insult) of the Criminal Code and sentenced them to one year of corrective work with a deduction of 10% of their monthly income in favour of the State. The applicants and S.M. appealed against the judgment. By a decision of 2 March 2021, the Shaki Court of Appeal upheld the conviction but changed the applicants’ sentence to eight months’ imprisonment instead of corrective work and deduction of salary. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s judgment by a final decision of 13 July 2021 (served on the applicants on 12 August 2021). The domestic courts, referring to the linguistic expert report and other adduced evidence, held that the applicants had publicly disseminated defamatory information damaging S.M.’s reputation. Relying on Article 10 of the Convention, the applicants complain that the domestic courts’ decisions amounted to a violation of their right to freedom of expression. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression 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? Was the sanction imposed on the applicants proportionate to the aims pursued?   The parties are requested to submit translations into English or French of the applicants’ allegedly defamatory posts and articles which led to their criminal conviction.