FIRST SECTION
CASE OF AZADLIQ AND ZAYIDOV v. AZERBAIJAN
(Application no. 9028/09)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
16 May 2024
 
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Azadliq and Zayidov v. Azerbaijan,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Krzysztof Wojtyczek, President,
 Lətif Hüseynov,
 Erik Wennerström, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 9028/09) against the Republic of Azerbaijan lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 5 November 2008 by a newspaper published in Azerbaijan, Azadlıq, and by an Azerbaijani national, Mr Ganimat Salim oglu Zayidov (Qənimət Səlim oğlu Zayidov), (“the applicants”), who were represented by Mr R. Hajili, a lawyer based in Strasbourg, and Mr E. Sadigov and Mr K. Agaliyev, lawyers based in Azerbaijan;
the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning Article 10 of the Convention to the Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Əsgərov;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 9 April 2024,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case, brought by a newspaper and its chief editor, concerns an allegedly unjustified and disproportionate interference with their right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention on account of sanctions imposed following publication in the newspaper of material found by the domestic courts to be defamatory of the Ministry of Defence (“the Ministry”). 2. Azadlıq (“the applicant newspaper”) is a newspaper in circulation in Azerbaijan since 1989. The second applicant, Mr Zayidov, was a journalist and chief editor of the applicant newspaper (for more details, see Azadlıq and Zayidov v. Azerbaijan, no. 20755/08, §§ 5-8, 30 June 2022). 3. In its edition of 14 February 2007, the applicant newspaper published an article entitled “The Mystery of Cheap Meat in the Ministry of Defence”, which alleged that the Ministry was importing low-quality and potentially radioactive meat for soldiers, from Chernobyl, Ukraine, at a price that was significantly below the market value. The article was authored by the applicant newspaper’s “Department of Information”. 4. On 16 February 2007 the Ministry lodged a civil defamation claim against the second applicant and the head of the “Department of Information”, arguing that the article contained false factual information about the armed forces, which damaged its professional reputation and lowered the morale of its troops. The Ministry requested that the defendants be ordered to publish a retraction and to pay compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage in a total amount of 150,000 Azerbaijani manats (AZN – approximately 114,000 euros (EUR) at the material time). 5. The applicants, who were represented at the court hearing by a lawyer, denied that the information published in the articles was false but failed to provide any source for that information. They also argued that the Ministry did not have standing under domestic law to lodge a civil defamation claim. 6. On 18 April 2007 the Yasamal District Court upheld the claim in part and ordered the applicant newspaper to publish a retraction and an apology and to pay AZN 20,000 (approximately EUR 15,200 at the material time) in respect of non-pecuniary damage to the Ministry. The operative part of the judgment concerned solely the newspaper and did not impose any sanctions on the second applicant. 7. The first-instance court concluded that the defendants had been unable to provide any proof of the veracity of the allegations made in the article and that it therefore contained information damaging to the Ministry’s professional reputation. 8. The applicants appealed in the newspaper’s name, arguing that the Ministry could not be considered a legal entity and therefore had no standing under the relevant provisions of the Civil Code to claim damage to professional reputation; that the domestic courts had failed to make a distinction between facts and value judgments; and that the courts had not taken into account the wider limits of criticism allowed by the Convention with regard to government institutions. 9. The applicants also complained that the damages awarded by the first‑instance court were excessive. They argued that the applicant newspaper was not in a position to pay such a large sum in damages as it was in dire financial circumstances, selling only half of its print runs and being unable to pay its employees, following a number of court rulings ordering the confiscation of its property for failure to pay taxes. 10. By a judgment of 7 November 2007, the Baku Court of Appeal partly allowed the appeal, reducing the amount of damages to AZN 10,000 (approximately EUR 7,600 at the material time). However, the appellate court did not provide any reasons as to why it had decided to award that particular amount. 11. The applicants lodged a cassation appeal, reiterating their previous arguments, including those relating to the applicant newspaper’s inability to pay the amount awarded in damages because of its financial difficulties. 12. By a final decision of 7 May 2008, the Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s judgment, reiterating its reasoning. It did not expressly address the applicants’ arguments concerning the proportionality of the interference. 13. The applicants complained that there had been an unjustified and disproportionate interference with their right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention on account of sanctions imposed following publication in the applicant newspaper of material found by the domestic courts to be defamatory of the Ministry.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 10
Outcome: violation