Communicated on 13 October 2016

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 28203/10 Fariz NAMAZLI against Azerbaijan lodged on 4 May 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Fariz Mubariz oglu Namazli , is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1982 and lives in Baku. He is represented before the Court by Mr R. Hajili , a lawyer practising in Baku.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

The applicant was working as a lawyer at the Media Rights Institute, a non-governmental organisation (NGO) dealing with various projects relating to freedom of information and freedom of expression.

On 28 November 2008 the applicant asked the head of the Binagadi District Executive Authority (“the BDEA”) for information concerning the yearly budget of the Binagadi District for 2008, the amount of funds received by the BDEA in the first half of 2008, and copies of documents concerning the BDEA ’ s expenditure from the budget and other funds in the first half of 2008. According to the applicant, his request was part of the research he was conducting into local executive authorities ’ compliance with their obligation to provide public access to information relating to the formulation and execution of their respective budgets.

By a letter of 17 December 2008 the deputy head of the BDEA responded that it was not within the BDEA ’ s competence to provide the type of information requested to any individual, organisation or company.

The applicant lodged an action with the Binagadi District Court. Relying on various provisions of, inter alia , the Constitution and the Law on Access to Information, he requested the court to order the BDEA to provide the requested information.

By a judgment of 25 February 2009 the Binagadi District Court dismissed the applicant ’ s claim, finding that the information requested by the applicant was not of the type that information holders were obligated to disclose under the Law on Access to Information.

The applicant appealed, pointing out that under Articles 29.1.6 and 29.1.13 of the Law on Access to Information, information holders were obligated to disclose reports on the activities of State authorities and municipalities, as well as statements on the execution of the State budget and rolling budgets.

By a judgment of 5 June 2009 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal. Without addressing his argument, it found that contrary to the Law on Access to Information, the applicant had failed to specify the purpose for which he had requested the information in question.

The applicant appealed again, arguing that he had specified the purpose of the request and that, in any event, the Law on Access to Information did not require him to do so. In addition to various provisions of the domestic law, he relied on Articles 6 and 10 of the Convention, arguing that his right to a reasoned judgment and his right to receive information had been breached by the BDEA and the lower courts.

By a decision of 4 November 2009 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal, upholding the Baku Court of Appeal ’ s reasoning and conclusion.

B. Relevant domestic law

The relevant parts of the 2005 Law on Access to Information provide:

Article 29. Information holder ’ s obligation to disclose information

“ 29.1. In order to meet public interests more easily and efficiently, and to reduce the high number of requests for information, the information holder shall disclose the following information available to it, or produced or acquired by it as a result of the fulfillment of public duties:

...

29.1.6. reports on the activities of State authorities and municipalities;

...

29.1.13. statements on the execution of the State budget and rolling budget; ...”

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention that the BDEA ’ s refusal to disclose the requested information amounted to a breach of his right to access to information of public interest.

The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the domestic courts ’ judgments were not adequately reasoned, because the courts failed to make a proper legal assessment of his arguments as required by domestic law.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s freedom of expression, in particular his right to receive and impart information, 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?

2. Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the proceedings in the present case? If so, did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant ’ s right to a reasoned decision respected, given the manner in which the domestic courts examined his arguments invoking the specific applicable provisions of the domestic law?