CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 mars 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 23 March 2026   THIRD SECTION Application no. 21261/22 Ziyatay MURADOV against Azerbaijan lodged on 5 April 2022 communicated on 6 March 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant owns and administers a Telegram account through which he disseminates information of public interest. The application concerns the administrative proceedings brought against him under Article 388-1.1.1 (dissemination on the internet of information restricted by law) of the Code of Administrative Offences. On 16 November 2021, the applicant posted a video on Telegram about military clashes between the Azerbaijani and Armenian armies in the Kalbajar and Lachin districts on 15 and 16 November 2021 with a caption reading “During the recent clashes, a SandCat [an armoured vehicle] belonging to the Azerbaijani army had also been struck”. On 24 November 2021 the General Prosecutor’s Office issued an official statement noting that certain individuals, including the applicant, had disseminated unverified, provocative, and false information on the internet regarding the events that occurred in the Kalbajar and Lachin districts. The prosecuting authorities drew up a relevant administrative-offence report in connection with the applicant’s post. By a judgment of 30 November 2021, the Khatai District Court, in a very brief manner and essentially reiterating the reasoning of the prosecuting authorities, held that the applicant had committed the abovementioned offence. The court imposed a fine of 500 Azerbaijani manats (approximately 260 euros at the material time) on the applicant. The applicant appealed against the judgment, arguing that the video had been taken from other foreign media outlet and that the information had not been refuted by the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Azerbaijan. On 29 December 2021, the appellate court upheld the lower court’s judgment, without addressing the applicant’s arguments. Relying on Articles 6, 10 and 18 of the Convention, the applicant complains of the alleged unfairness of the domestic proceedings and of a violation of his right to freedom of expression. The applicant also argues that the public statement made by the prosecuting authorities breached his right to the presumption of innocence, and that his conviction pursued the ulterior purpose of punishing him for his blogging activity. 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 decision respected?   2. Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article   6 §   2 of the Convention, respected in the present case?   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 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?   4. 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?   The parties are invited to submit evidence in support of their submissions and related to the administrative proceedings, including the translation into English or French of the information which led to the applicant’s conviction and the official statement of the prosecuting authorities in this respect.