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. 25610/23 Ali ALIYEV against Azerbaijan lodged on 22 June 2023 communicated on 21 November 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The present application concerns criminal proceedings instituted against the applicant, an opposition party leader, as private prosecution by R.G., a former head of a district branch of the ruling party. In September 2021, an intimate video of R.G. was published on social network platforms. Following the incident, R.G.’s party membership was cancelled. A few days later, the applicant referring to the impugned video, made some allegedly defamatory statements about R.G. in an interview on a YouTube channel. By a judgment of 23 June 2022, the Yasamal District Court convicted the applicant under Article 148 (insult) of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment. This sentence was merged fully with a previous prison sentence imposed on him in a different set of defamation proceedings, resulting in one year’s imprisonment. After a series of appeals, by a final decision of 1 March 2023, the Supreme Court upheld the judgments of the lower courts. Relying on Articles 6 and 10 of the Convention, the applicant complains about the alleged unfairness of the proceedings and argues that his conviction amounted to 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 charge against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s right to a reasoned judgment respected?   2.     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 that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2? Was the sanction imposed on the applicant proportionate to the aims pursued?   The parties are requested to submit translations into English or French of the applicant’s allegedly defamatory statements which led to his criminal conviction.