CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 novembre 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sCDD55F3 { margin-left:14.17pt; padding-left:3.68pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sE58FF9D5 { margin-left:15.01pt; padding-left:2.84pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt }   Published on 22 November 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 56138/18 RFE/RL INC. against Azerbaijan and 3 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 3 November 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications concern blocking of access to websites owned and operated by the individual applicants and applicant organisations (media outlets). Access to the websites was restricted by court decisions pursuant to applications by the Ministry of Transport, Communications and High Technologies, based on findings, with references to a number of articles published on each website, that the websites had repeatedly published information prohibited by the Law on information, information processing and information protection, and in the interests of national security, territorial integrity, public order and prevention of disorder and crime. On various dates (see the Appendix), appeals lodged by the applicants and applicant organisations were dismissed by the final decisions of the Supreme Court. The applicants and applicant organisations raise complaints under Articles 10 and 18 of the Convention and other Convention provisions.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Common questions 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to freedom of expression, in particular their right to impart information and ideas, contrary to Article   10 of the Convention? Was the alleged interference prescribed by law, did it pursue a legitimate aim, and was it necessary in a democratic society, in terms of Article   10 §   2?   2.     Were the restrictions imposed by the State in the present case, purportedly pursuant to Article 10 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by that provision, contrary to Article   18 of the Convention?   Case-specific questions Application no. 56138/18 : Did the applicant organisation have a fair hearing in the determination of its civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6   §   1 of the Convention, in particular with regard to admission and examination of evidence and the right to a reasoned decision?   Application no. 48735/19 : Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6   §   1 of the Convention, in particular with regard to admission and examination of evidence and the right to a reasoned decision? Moreover, was the principle of equality of arms respected as regards the applicant’s absence in the proceedings before the first-instance court?   Applications nos. 48735/19, 51207/19 and 58694/19 : Did the applicants and applicant organisations have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their Convention complaints, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?       APPENDIX List of applications No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth/Registration Place of Residence Nationality Represented by Website Date of the final domestic decision by the Supreme Court   56138/18 RFE/RL Inc. v. Azerbaijan 22 November 2018 RFE/RL INC. 2004 Baku office USA Adil ISMAYILOV azadliq.org 4 June 2018   48735/19 Talibov v. Azerbaijan 10 August 2019 Azer Mammad oglu TALIBOV 1974 Barda Azerbaijani Elchin SADIGOV anaxeber.az 20 December 2018 (received by the applicant on 11 February 2018)   51207/19 24Saat.org Ltd and Alakbarov v. Azerbaijan 18 September 2019 24SAAT.ORG LTD 2019 Baku Azerbaijan   Vugar ALAKBAROV 1981 Baku Azerbaijani Elchin SADIGOV 24saat.org 24 January 2019 (received by the applicant on 18   March 2019)   58694/19 Khural Newspaper and Zeynalov v. Azerbaijan 18 October 2019 KHURAL NEWSPAPER 2002 Baku Azerbaijan Avaz Tapdig oglu ZEYNALOV 1970 Baku Azerbaijani Zibeyda SADIGOVA xural.com 21 February 2019 (received by the applicant on 24 April 2019)