CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 18 décembre 2008

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   928 18.12.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT MAHMUDOV AND AGAZADE v. AZERBAIJAN   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Mahmudov and Agazade v. Azerbaijan (application no.   35877/04).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the applicants’ conviction for defamation of a politician and well-known expert on agriculture.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicants, jointly, 1,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   925 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants, Rovshan Asgar oglu Mahmudov and Yashar Vaqif oglu Agazade, are Azerbaijani nationals who were born in 1961 and 1979 respectively and live in Baku (Azerbaijan). They were the editor and a journalist for the newspaper, Müxalifət.   The case concerned the applicants’ complaint about their conviction and sentencing to imprisonment for defamation of a politician and well-known expert on agriculture following the publication of an article concerning problems in Azerbaijan’s agricultural sector.   In April 2003 the newspaper published an article entitled “Grain Mafia in Azerbaijan” ( “Azərbaycanda taxıl mafiyası” ), under a pseudonym of the second applicant. The article was accompanied by a picture of J.A., who was a member of the National Academy of Sciences, a well-known expert in agriculture, and a member of the Azerbaijani Parliament. The article generally spoke about a number of problems in the country’s agricultural sector. It also appeared to imply, among other things, that J.A. was in charge of certain experimental crops in several agricultural regions.   J.A. filed a criminal complaint with Yasamal District Court claiming that the article clearly referred to him in a defamatory, slanderous and insulting manner.   During the trial, the applicants argued that the picture of J.A. was placed in the article because of his general achievements in the development of grain farming, that the article was concerned with the general situation of the agricultural sector and that it contained no information specifically accusing J.A. of any criminal activity.   In May 2003 the Yasamal District Court convicted the applicants of defamation and insult. Having examined extracts from the article, the court noted that the text of the article clearly mentioned J.A.’s name in full and clearly stated that thousands of hectares of grain fields belonged to him. The court found that the article tarnished J.A.’s honour, dignity and public image as it linked to a farming “mafia” and accused him of exercising illegal control over state-owned “experimental” grain fields.   The court sentenced each applicant to five months’ imprisonment and, at the same time, exempted them from serving their sentences.   The applicants appealed unsuccessfully before the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 9 August 2004.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greece), President , Nina Vajić (Croatia), Anatoly Kovler (Russia), Elisabeth Steiner (Austria), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijan), Giorgio Malinverni (Switzerland), George Nicolaou (Cyprus), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   The applicants complained in particular that their conviction for defamation and insult had breached Article 10 (freedom of expression).   Decision of the Court   Article 10   The Court noted that the article discussed a number of issues concerning the current problems in the agricultural sector. As such, the subject matter of the article constituted a matter of general interest.   The Court also pointed out that J.A. was a public figure and thus exposed himself to criticism.   Nonetheless, the Court considered that the applicants had asserted without a sufficient factual basis that J.A. had exercised control over thousands of hectares of state-owned agricultural land, and had therefore failed to act in good faith and in accordance with the ethics of journalism. It therefore found that, in the circumstances of the applicants’ case, the domestic authorities had been entitled to consider it necessary to restrict the exercise of the applicants’ right to freedom of expression and that, accordingly, the applicants’ conviction for insult and defamation met a “pressing social need”.   However, the Court considered that there had been no justification for the imposition of a prison sentence. Such a sanction, by its very nature, had a chilling effect on the exercise of journalistic freedom. The fact that the applicants had not served their prison sentence did not alter that conclusion, as they had been exempted from serving their sentence only owing to a fortunate coincidence of an amnesty act.   It followed that, that sentence of imprisonment had contravened the principle that the press had to be able to perform the role of a public watchdog in a democratic society.   In conclusion, the Court held that the criminal sanction imposed on the applicants had amounted to a disproportionate interference with their freedom of expression and, in breach of Article 10, could not be regarded as “necessary in a democratic society”.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Adrien Raif-Meyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 33 37) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Sania Ivedi (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 59 45)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.