Communicated on 28 August 2018

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 3409/10 Azer Gudrat oglu AHMADOV against Azerbaijan lodged on 30 December 2009

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Azer Ahmadov , is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1962 and lives in Baku. He is represented before the Court by Mr R. Hacılı and Mr F. Namazli , lawyers practising in Azerbaijan.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

On an unspecified date in 2008 the applicant found out that his telephone communication with his colleague (V.M.) had been intercepted in the course of tapping another journalist ’ s (A.K.) telephone conversations.

On 30 July 2008 the applicant broug ht proceedings before the first ‑ instance court against the Ministry of National Security and Prosecutor General ’ s office. He asked the court to find his phone tapping unlawful and to award him damages.

On 15 August 2008 the Nasimi District Court declared his complaint inadmissible, stating that this complaint should be examined not in civil but in criminal proceedings.

On 27 October 2008 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld this decision.

On 12 January 2009 the Supreme Court overturned these decisions. It held that the lower courts had not examined all the relevant circumstances of the case and referred it back to the appellate court.

When re-examining the case, the representative of the Ministry of National Security, for the first time, informed the court about the decision of the Sabail District Court of 14 March 2008 authorising secret surveillance of A.K. and his connections.

Following this, the Baku Court of Appeal referred the case back to the first-instance court for fresh examination.

After having examined the applicant ’ s complaint on the merits, on 24 June 2009 the Sabail District Court dismissed the applicant ’ s claims and held that the interception of communication had been lawful since the decision of the Sabail District Court of 14 March 2008 concerned him too because he was one of A.K. ’ s connections.

On 11 November 2009 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld this decision.

After obtaining a copy of the Sabail District Court ’ s decision of 14 March 2008, the applicant challenged this decision before criminal courts in accordance with Article 454 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which provides that the decision of the judge on the lawfulness of the prosecuting authorities ’ actions or decisions may be disputed before an appellate court in accordance with the proced ure established in Articles 452 ‑ 453, and asked them to declare it unlawful and to award him compensation for non-pecuniary damage.

On 22 June 2009 the Sabail District Court declared the complaint inadmissible, concluding that the applicant did not have the right to complain because the said decision did not contain any instructions concerning him.

On 3 July 2009 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld this decision.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the domestic courts violated his right of access to court by declaring his complaints inadmissible. In particular, he argues that the criminal courts had to examine his complaints and find violations of his rights after concluding that the Sabail District Court ’ s decision of 14 March 2008 did not concern him.

Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the interception of his telephone conversations without any court order was not in accordance with the law, did not pursue any legitimate aim and was not necessary in a democratic society.

Relying on Article 10 of the Convention, the applicant alleges that the interception of his telephone conversations breached the confidentiality of journalistic sources.

The applicant complains under Article 13 of the Convention that he was not afforded a remedy providing effective protection in respect of his complaints under Articles 6, 8 and 10 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s right to respect for his private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law in terms of Article 8 § 2?

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 n ecessary in terms of Article 10 § 2?

3. Having regard to the domestic courts ’ decisions in criminal proceedings, was the applicant denied the right of access to court, in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

4. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?