CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 septembre 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sC8636342 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse } .sF5C9E8B1 { height:46.3pt } .sD1CDDC62 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s2490CDBC { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s8DB21C27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .s26ADB50A { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sFD306575 { height:35.55pt } .s2F4AF114 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6CF83D49 { margin-left:11.67pt; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .s898DAE93 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA0B2759 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sB71F2881 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBCA334AF { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7CB6920E { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s62945D10 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   Communicated on 11 September 2017   FIFTH SECTION Application no 1158/17 Aynur GANBAROVA against Azerbaijan and 3 other applications (see list appended) STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicants are Azerbaijani nationals. Their years of birth and places of residence are listed in the Appendix. They are represented before the Court by various lawyers practising in Azerbaijan and the United Kingdom (see Appendix). The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. The applicants are journalists. The applicants in applications nos.   1158/17, 8405/17 and 11040/17 collaborate with Meydan TV, an online media channel. The applicant in application no. 44031/17 works as a journalist for the Azerbaijani service of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. On different dates in 2015 and 2016 (see Appendix) the applicants learned that restrictions on their right to leave Azerbaijan were imposed and that they were no longer allowed to leave the country. The applicant in application no. 1158/17 was also subjected to a search at Baku airport on 6   December 2015 when she was not allowed to leave the country. It appears from the documents in the case files that the restrictions in respect of the applicants in applications nos. 1158/17, 8405/17 and 11040/17 were imposed by the investigating authorities, in the absence of any judicial decision, within the framework of the criminal proceedings relating to the activities of Meydan TV. In those criminal proceedings, they were not convicted, accused or suspected persons, but were questioned only as witnesses. The restriction in respect of the applicant in application no. 44031/17 was imposed following her criminal conditional conviction with a probation period of five years by the Supreme Court’s decision of 25 May 2016. On various dates the applicants challenged the lawfulness of the restrictions imposed on them. In particular, the applicants in applications nos. 1158/17, 8405/17 and 11040/17 lodged a complaint both with the administrative courts and with the ordinary courts under the procedure concerning the review of the lawfulness of procedural actions or decisions by the prosecuting authorities. The applicant in application no. 44031/17 lodged a complaint with the ordinary courts. In applications nos. 1158/17, 8405/17 and 11040/17, by final decisions adopted on various dates, by the Supreme Court in the administrative proceedings and by the Baku Court of Appeal in the proceedings relating to the review of the lawfulness of the prosecuting authorities’ actions and decisions, the domestic courts refused to examine the applicants’ complaints on the merits declaring themselves incompetent to examine such a complaint (see Appendix). In application no. 44031/17, by a final decision of 8   December 2016 of the Supreme Court, the domestic courts dismissed the applicant’s complaint after having examined it on the merits. They found that the restriction in question was necessary in order to oversee the execution of the applicant’s conditional sentence during the probation period. COMPLAINTS The applicants complain under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention that their right to leave Azerbaijan was violated by travel bans imposed on them by the domestic authorities. Relying on Articles 10 and 13 of the Convention and Article 18 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, they also complain that the imposition of travel bans on them violated their freedom of expression, that they had no effective remedy at the domestic level in respect of travel bans imposed on them and that their Convention rights were restricted for purposes other than those prescribed in the Convention. The applicants in applications nos. 1158/17, 8405/17 and 11040/17 further complain under Article 6 of the Convention that the domestic authorities violated their right of access to a court by refusing to examine their complaints on the merits. The applicant in application no. 1158/17 also complains under Article 8 of the Convention that she was subjected to an unlawful search at Baku airport on 6 December 2015 when she was not allowed to leave the country. The applicant in application no. 44031/17 also complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the travel ban imposed on her affected her private and family life because she was prevented from effectively working as an investigative journalist and assisting her mother for the latter’s medical treatment abroad.   COMMON QUESTIONS 1.     Was any restriction placed on the applicants’ freedom to leave the territory of the respondent State, as guaranteed by Article 2 § 2 of Protocol   No. 4? If so, was that restriction in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 2 § 3 of Protocol No. 4?   2.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?   3.     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?   4.     Were the restrictions imposed by the State in the present cases, purportedly pursuant to Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by that provision, contrary to Article 18 of the Convention? CASE SPECIFIC QUESTION IN RESPECT OF APPLICATION 1158/17   Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, as a result of the search carried out at Baku airport on 6 December 2015? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2? CASE SPECIFIC QUESTION IN RESPECT OF APPLICATION   44031/17   Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her private and family life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, as a result of the travel ban imposed on her? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 §   2? APPENDIX No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant name date of birth place of residence Represented by Date on which the applicant learned about the restriction Relevant final court decisions in the domestic proceedings   1158/17 22/12/2016 Aynur Telman gizi GANBAROVA 29/05/1974 Aghdam   Elchin SADIGOV Zibeyda SADIGOVA 6 December 2015 The Supreme Court’s decision of 22 June 2016 and the Baku Court of Appeal’s decision of 23 June 2016   8405/17 14/01/2017 Aytaj Soltan gizi AHMADOVA 18/07/1993 Baku   Elchin SADIGOV Zibeyda SADIGOVA 20 November 2015   The Baku Court of Appeal’s decision of 14 July 2016   11040/17 30/01/2017 Natig Sabir oglu JAVADLI 13/03/1971 Sumgayit   Elchin SADIGOV Zibeyda SADIGOVA 30 June 2015 The Supreme Court’s decision of 12 January 2017 and the Baku Court of Appeal’s decision of 12 August 2016   44031/17 16/06/2017 Khadija Rovshan gizi ISMAYILOVA 27/05/1976 Baku   Fariz NAMAZLI Jessica GAVRON Joanne SAWYER Philip LEACH June 2016     The Supreme Court’s decision of 8 December 2016 (the applicant was provided with a copy of the decision on 16 December 2016)