CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 janvier 2022

.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 } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s88830249 { width:100%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s38C4E992 { width:19.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s482F300A { width:19.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s39FE9329 { width:13.42%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sA651F408 { width:15.94%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sA13EBEE1 { width:13.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE7593841 { width:17.46%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sEE73AB42 { width:19.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s2E3B3F22 { width:19.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sAE6559C9 { width:13.42%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF9BB3C40 { width:15.94%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFA694C35 { width:13.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE50CC373 { width:17.46%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 31 January 2022   FIFTH SECTION Applications nos. 27329/19 and 39963/20 Mustafa Mustafa oglu HAJILI against Azerbaijan lodged on 6 April 2019 and 17 July 2020 respectively communicated on 14 January 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications concern criminal proceedings against the applicant, a journalist and opposition politician, and blocking of access to a website (bastainfo.com) personally owned and operated by him. In early July 2018 the Prosecutor General’s Office and the Baku City Prosecutor’s Office instituted criminal proceedings in connection with various articles published on bastainfo.com and several other websites, including articles about the attempted murder of the head of the Ganja City Executive Authority and ensuing episodes of civil unrest and violence which had taken place in Ganja. On 9   July 2018 the Prosecutor General’s Office issued a press statement informing the public of the instituted criminal proceedings. It appears that on 9 July 2018 access to bastainfo.com was restricted, without a court decision or other formal decision, by the Ministry of Transport, Communications and High Technologies (“the Ministry”) pursuant to a request by the Prosecutor General’s Office. The applicant attempted to challenge the blocking of access to the website by lodging complaints against the Ministry and the Prosecutor General’s Office under three different procedures (an administrative claim, a civil claim, and a complaint under the procedure of judicial supervision of prosecuting authorities’ procedural acts and decisions). All of his complaints were declared inadmissible on various procedural grounds by final decisions delivered in 2018 and 2019. In the meantime, in the framework of the criminal proceedings mentioned above, on 30 November 2018 the applicant was charged with criminal offences of sedition, abuse of authority and forgery by an official in connection with the articles published on bastainfo.com. Following a trial, the applicant was convicted on all counts and given a suspended sentence of five and a half years’ imprisonment, conditional on two years’ probation, and a two years’ ban on holding public office. The conviction was upheld by the Supreme Court’s final decision of 13 November 2019, which was sent to the applicant on 30 December 2019. The applicant raises complaints under Articles 6, 10, 13, 14 and 18 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In respect of application no. 39963/20, has the applicant complied with the six-month time-limit, having regard to the exceptional measures taken by the Court from Monday 16 March 2020 onwards, as extended on 9 April 2020 (see the press release of 9 April 2020 (ECHR 108 (2020)) issued by the Registrar of the Court)?   2.     In connection with, firstly, the blocking of access to the applicant’s website and, secondly, the applicant’s subsequent criminal conviction, have there been violations of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, in particular his right to impart information and ideas, contrary to Article   10 of the Convention? Were the alleged interferences prescribed by law, did they pursue a legitimate aim, and were they necessary in a democratic society, in terms of Article   10 §   2?   3.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article   6 of the Convention, in particular with regard to admission and examination of evidence and the right to a reasoned decision?   4.     Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article   6 §   2 of the Convention, respected in the present case in view of the statements made in the press release of the Prosecutor General’s Office of 9 July 2018? Regarding this complaint, has the applicant complied with the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies and the six-month rule?   5.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaint concerning the measure involving the blocking of access to his website, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?   6.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention rights, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention?   7.     Were the above-mentioned measures imposed by the State in the present case, purportedly pursuant to Articles 6 and 10 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by those provisions, contrary to Article   18 of the Convention?   Appendix Applications nos. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence Represented by 1. 27329/19   2. 39963/20 Mustafa Mustafa oglu HAJILI 1972 Azerbaijani Baku 1. Nemat KARIMLI   2. Nemat KARIMLI Osman KAZIMOV