Published on 19 February 2024

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 12308/20 Farman MAMMADOV against Azerbaijan lodged on 20 February 2020 communicated on 1 February 2024

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns civil proceedings instituted against the applicant and four other respondents, journalists. The case was made in connection with publications in various newspapers and internet media, in which it was stated, with reference to the applicant’s statements given to the media, that H.A., a young businessman, had deceived people and fraudulently misappropriated their money. These publications also stated, with reference to the applicant, that H.A.’s mother, E.A., a former member of parliament, had used her position to cover up her son’s actvities and also to secure the allocation of various government contracts to people close to her. H.A. and E.A sued, claiming that the information contained in the publications was false and damaging to their reputations. The domestic courts ruled in the plaintiffs’ favour, finding that the respondents had been unable to prove the veracity of the factual statements made in the publications, and ordered each of them, including the applicant, to pay non-pecuniary damage in the amount of 10,000 Azerbaijani manats to each of the plaintiffs. In his appeal, the applicant argued, inter alia , that the domestic courts had failed to make a distinction between facts and value judgments and that the amounts awarded were excessive.

The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention that interference with his freedom of expression was unjustified and that the sanction applied to him was disproportionate.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. 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 justified in terms of Article 10 § 2? In particular, was the characterisation of the applicant’s utterances as statements of fact, rather than value judgments, justified? Were the amounts of damages awarded in compliance with the requirement of proportionality?

2. Has the Binagadi District Court’s decision of 31 August 2018 been executed regarding the applicant, and has he paid the sums specified in the decision?

3. The parties are requested to submit a detailed summary in English or French of the impugned publications, as well as translations into English or French of the specific extracts of the impugned publications, which were found to be defamatory by the domestic courts.