The European Court announced its 3 decisions regarding Azerbaijan

Two applicants’ complaints were recognized, one was considered inadmissible

Europe On June 30, the Human Rights Court (ECHR) announced 3 decisions on complaints sent from Azerbaijan.

Court In 2 cases, it recognized most of the violations alleged by the applicants, and 1 application was inadmissible counted.

Azadlig newspaper and Ganimat Zayidov To Azerbaijan v., the ECtHR decided that there had been an interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression.

The moral damage caused to the applicant for the recognition of the violation compensation The government will pay 1,500 euros to the applicant’s lawyer for legal fees, according to the court’s decision.

The applicants in this case were “Azadlig” newspaper and Ganimat Zayidov (Zahid), who was the editor of that newspaper at the time of the events.

Complaint “President assistant’s corrupt apparatus” – according to the headline article, civil filed against the petitioners court claims, issued on those claims court related to decisions.

In that article Azerbaijan The property of Tariyel Aghayev, who was a former assistant of the former president, and his relatives, football club, land plots, restaurants and various commercial establishments are mentioned.

Their corruption way It was claimed that it was obtained with

Tariyel Agayev sued the newspaper and its editor-in-chief, stating that the information in the article was false and damaged his reputation.

Local courts ruled in favor of the plaintiff on the basis that the defendants could not prove the truth of the information spread.

For moral damage newspaper 40,000, and the editor-in-chief of the newspaper was fined 25,000 manats.

The higher courts rejected the petitioners’ appeals against that decision.

The applicants claimed before the ECHR that national the decisions of the courts interfered with their right to freedom of expression. Moreover, the interference is not justified and disproportionate.

“Fariz Prayerful To Azerbaijan against” – in the case, the ECHR decided to consider the application inadmissible.
In this case, the violation of the right to freedom of expression (access to public information) was contested.

Various projects related to freedom of expression execution The applicant, who is a lawyer of the Media Law Institute, Binagadi District, in accordance with the Law “On Access to Information” Execution He addressed the head of the government with a request.

He requested that of Binagadi district 20The 2008 budget should provide him with information about the state of spending the budget.

Execution The authorities responded to the request, but did not provide any information.

The applicant applied to the court and asked the defendant to be responsible for providing him with the information he wanted through the request

His claim was not satisfied.

It was reported that the information requested by the applicant is not included in the list of information to be disclosed according to the Law “On Access to Information”.

The applicant’s appeal against that decision was also rejected.

In the decision of the appellate instance, it was noted that the applicant did not justify the purpose for which he wanted to obtain the information.

The applicant’s cassation appeal Ali The court refused. After this Fariz Namazli filed a claim before the ECHR.

He stated that not providing him with the public information he wanted violated the right of access to information of public interest (Art 10).

The applicant also claimed that the decisions of the domestic courts were not justified (Article 6).

“Rovshan Ahmadli To Azerbaijan v. – in the case, the ECtHR decided that the applicant’s right to a fair trial was violated.

The government must pay the applicant 3,600 non-pecuniary damage and 500 euros for costs and expenses.

At the time of these events, he was the deputy chairman of the Islamic Party Rovshan Ahmadli’s administrative order imprisonment was related to making.

The applicant said in his complaint that in January 2011, three the police by his colleague and two plainclothes officers the police was taken to the office.

The applicant, about whom a protocol on an administrative error was drawn up in the office, the police was found guilty of disobeying his employee’s legal request (to stop making noise in a public place).

he 10 per day imprisonment was done.

The applicant claimed that the court decisions against him were groundless, he was not given time to prepare his defense, and conditions were not created.