CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 avril 2021

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Published on 17 May 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 12708/13 AZADLIQ NEWSPAPER against Azerbaijan lodged on 14 August 2013 communicated on 28 April 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns civil defamation proceedings instituted against the applicant newspaper in connection with an article concerning an increase in the amount of the fare for travelling on the Baku Metro (subway) and alleged “disappearance” of small amounts of deposited money from passengers’ travel cards. The article suggested that the chief executive of the Baku Metro had misappropriated the funds. The chief executive sued the newspaper, claiming that the information was false and damaging to his reputation and seeking a compensation award in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The domestic courts upheld the claim, ordering the applicant newspaper to publish a refutation and to pay 30,000   Azerbaijani manats (AZN) (approximately 30,000 euros) in damages.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicant newspaper’s 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 in pursuit of a legitimate aim? Was the amount of compensation for damages awarded in the present case in compliance with the requirement of proportionality?