CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 novembre 2024

.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 } Published on 9 December 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no. 25138/23 Aydin JANIYEV against Azerbaijan lodged on 2 June 2023 communicated on 21 November 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns administrative proceedings against the applicant, a journalist, instituted after a complaint by E.F., a journalist, resulting in the applicant’s administrative conviction for disseminating “restricted information” on Facebook. By a judgment of 26 January 2013, the Yasamal District Court convicted the applicant under Article 388-1.1.1 (dissemination on the internet of information restricted by law) of the Code of Administrative Offences (CAO) and sentenced him to thirty days’ administrative detention. The court held, and the applicant admitted, that he had shared insulting and defamatory statements about E.F. on Facebook. The Baku Court of Appeal, essentially reiterating the lower court’s reasoning, upheld the conviction and the sentence in a final decision of 8 February 2023. Relying on Articles 6 and 10 of the Convention, the applicant complains of an alleged unfairness of the domestic proceedings and a violation of his freedom of expression.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s right to a reasoned decision respected?   2. Was the applicant able to defend himself through legal assistance of his own choosing, as required by Article   6 §   3   (c) of the Convention?   3.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was the interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 §   2 in pursuit of a legitimate aim? Was the sanction imposed on the applicant proportionate to the aims pursued?   The parties are requested to submit the original text and a translation into English or French of the impugned restricted information disseminated by the applicant which led to his conviction.