CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 mai 2018

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 23 May 2018   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 52584/09 Ali Rashid oglu HASANOV against Azerbaijan lodged on 10 September 2009 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns conviction of the applicant, a journalist and chief editor of a newspaper, for publishing two defamatory articles concerning a female war veteran. While the applicant argued that he did not author the articles, the domestic court found that he had authored them under pseudonyms and that the articles contained insulting and offensive language. The applicant was convicted under Article 148 of the Criminal Code (insult) and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. By a final decision of 11 March 2009 the Supreme Court upheld the conviction and the sentence. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article   10 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, did the applicant author the articles in question? If so, was that interference necessary in terms of Article   10 §   2? Was the sanction imposed on the applicant proportionate to the aims pursued (see Cumpǎnǎ and   Mazǎre v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, ECHR 2004 ‑ XI, and Mahmudov and Agazade v. Azerbaijan , no. 35877/04, 18 December 2008)?   2.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, were the decisions reached by the domestic courts arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see Berhani v. Albania , no.   847/05, 27 May 2010; Ajdarić v. Croatia , no. 20883/09, 13   December 2011; and Nemtsov v. Russia , no. 1774/11, 31 July 2014)?   3.     The parties are requested to submit translations into English or French of the specific extracts of the impugned articles which led to the applicant’s criminal conviction.