| Applicant name | MURSALIYEV |
| Applicant type | Natural person |
| Number of applicants | 1 |
| Country | AZERBAIJAN |
| Application no. | 35960/14 71554/14 |
| Date | 28/03/2024 |
| Judges | Krzysztof Wojtyczek, President, Lətif Hüseynov, Erik Wennerström |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | Violation |
| Reason | Positive obligation (procedural requirements) |
| Type of privacy | Private life; procedural privacy |
| Keywords | Reputational harm; de minimis; |
| Facts of the case | The applicant’s uncle M.A. went missing in 2003 and criminal proceedings were initiated in relation to his disappearance. At the time of the events no one had been charged as a suspect in those proceedings. The applicant had been questioned as a witness. E.A., who was M.A.’s brother and the applicant’s other uncle and was a former rector of one of the private universities in Azerbaijan, had fled the country pending criminal proceedings against him in relation to charges of corruption, and currently lives in France. In 2013 an interview with R.Z., a lawyer, entitled “Warning bell from a well-known lawyer”, was published by the Təzadlar newspaper. The interview contained the following passage: “Some of you, … – unlike his nephew, the lawyer in this case, the official spokesperson who has been jailed by the ‘Parisian uncle’ [referring to E.A.] and who is now presenting himself as his [E.A.’s] representative, whom I consider a suspect in killing M.[A.] as he attempted to flee the country but was prevented from doing so – are still not free from the disease of wanting to stay in the spotlight … If you [referring to E.A.] loved your brother so much, why did you kill him for money and involve your other brothers and your nephew … in this affair?” |
| Analysis | The Court considers that the statements made in respect of the applicant affected his private life to such a degree as to engage Article 8 of the Convention. The Court observes that the applicant complained before the domestic courts that R.Z. had accused him of committing a serious crime against his own uncle in the statements made in his interview with the newspaper in question. The domestic courts, however, dismissed his complaints, holding mainly that the statements in question were not defamatory as R.Z. had shared information which required investigation. They also noted that, since the investigation concerning the disappearance of M.A. was ongoing, it was impossible to establish whether the statements made by R.Z. were true or not. The Court cannot but note that the reasoning provided by the domestic courts in the present case is not compliant with the general principles established under its case-law (see paragraph 15 above) and does not demonstrate that the courts duly examined whether the statements made about the applicant had overstepped the permissible bounds of freedom of expression. Neither does the domestic courts’ reasoning demonstrate that they carried out an adequate assessment of all the relevant circumstances and duly considered the importance and scope of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, which was one of the two Convention rights at stake in the present case, both rights being of equal importance. |
| Other Article violation? | – |
| Damage awarded | Holds (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; (b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points; |
| Documents | Judgment |