AZADLIQ.INFO AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 36589/17
AZADLIQ.INFO and Others
against Azerbaijan

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 29 April 2025 as a Committee composed of:

 Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir, President,
 Lətif Hüseynov,
 Canòlic Mingorance Cairat, judges,
and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 36589/17) 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 21 June 2017 on behalf of four websites, the relevant details of which are listed in the appended table, which were represented by Ms R. Remezaite, a lawyer based in London, and Mr J. Javadov and Mr S. Rahimli, lawyers based in Azerbaijan;

the decision to give notice of the application to the Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Əsgərov;

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1.  The case, brought under Articles 10, 13 and 18 of the Convention, concerns the blocking of access to four websites.

2.  In the relevant section of the application form, as applicants, the URL addresses of four websites were noted: Azadliq.info (“the first website”), Azerbaycan saati (azerbaycansaati.tv – “the second website”), Kanalturan TV (kanalturan.com – “the third website”) and Meydan TV (meydan.tv – “the fourth website”).

3.  G.Z. signed the relevant parts of the application form as the “organisation official” acting on behalf of azadliq.info, azerbaycansaati.com and kanalturan.com in his capacity as their “editor-in-chief”, authorising the lawyers to represent those websites before the Court. In respect of meydan.tv, E.A. signed the application form as its “organisation official” (in the capacity of “director”) and authorised the lawyers to represent it before the Court.

4.  In the application form it is indicated that azadliq.info is the website of the Azadliq newspaper. The address of Azadliq newspaper is indicated as the address of azadliq.info in the application form. According to the information provided by the parties after the case was communicated, azadliq.info is operated by Azadliq.info LLC, a legal entity registered in Azerbaijan on 22 January 2015, which is the alleged successor to Azadliq newspaper (no document has been provided showing that the State’s registration of Azadliq newspaper as a legal entity has been annulled).

5.  According to the information provided in the application form, azerbaycansaati.tv and kanalturan.com are the websites for the Azerbaycan saati TV and Turan TV channels respectively, which are “internet television broadcasters” (video streaming websites) operating from Strasbourg, France. In their observations, G.Z. asserted that he had founded the second and third websites. No supporting document was provided in that regard. In addition, there is no document available in the case file indicating that those “internet television broadcasters” have been registered as legal entities in either Azerbaijan or France.

6.  According to the information provided on behalf of meydan.tv in the observations, it is a website owned and run by Vereinigung für die Demokratie e.V., a legal entity registered in Germany. The website is operated from Berlin. The broadcaster under that name has not been registered as a legal entity in Azerbaijan. No company documents for Vereinigung für die Demokratie e.V are available in the case file.

7.  Throughout the application form and in the subsequent submissions, all four websites were referred to as the “applicant websites” by their representatives.

8.  On 27 March 2017 the Prosecutor General’s Office submitted a letter to the Ministry of Transportation, Communication and High Technologies (“the MTCHT”) asking it to block access to the websites in question on the grounds that there was prohibited information published on them which “threatened the State and public interests protected by law”.

9.  On the same date, the MTCHT temporarily blocked access to the websites with immediate effect and applied for a court order to permanently block access to them. On 12 May 2017 the Sabail District Court granted the Ministry’s request and ordered access to the websites to be blocked.

10.  The appeals against the blocking order lodged by Azadliq.info LLC were dismissed by the decisions of 19 December 2017 of the Baku Court of Appeal and of 4 June 2018 of the Supreme Court.

11.  Following a series of appeals lodged on behalf of meydan.tv and the remittal of the case to the appellate court by the Supreme Court on the basis of an extraordinary appeal by the MTCHT the decisions of the appellate court and the Supreme Court (referred to in paragraph 10 above), and the decisions delivered in connection with the appeals lodged on behalf of meydan.tv were annulled, and by a decision of 9 September 2020 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the Sabail District Court dated 12 May 2017.

12.  F.M. and E.S., legal representatives acting on behalf of azadliq.info and meydan.tv respectively, lodged separate cassation appeals against the decision of 9 September 2020. The parties have not provided the final decision of the Supreme Court to the Court.

13.  No appeals have been lodged in respect of the second and third websites against the judgment of the first-instance court of 12 May 2017.

14.  The application concerns complaints under Articles 10, 13 and 18 of the Convention. On behalf of the websites, the representatives complained that the blocking of access to the websites had amounted to a violation of the websites’ right to freedom of expression.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

15.  Referring to Article 34 of the Convention, the Government argued that all the websites lacked locus standi before the Court, because the websites were not persons, non-governmental organisations or groups of individuals who could lodge an application with the Court. The Government also noted that websites were not a type of legal entity themselves – they could only be owned by an individual or a legal entity. They further noted that azadliq.info and meydan.tv were owned and/or operated by Azadliq.info LLC and Vereinigung für die Demokratie e.V respectively, but it had not been shown which legal entities or individuals owned the second and third websites.

16.  The Government further argued that the first, second and third “applicant websites” failed to submit evidence showing that G.Z. had been entitled to act on their behalf and in their name before the Court or to authorise lawyers to do so. In this connection, the Government also referred to the statements signed by the supposed staff members of the azadliq.info and kanalturan.com websites (see paragraph 21 below) and noted that those statements could not be considered as legal documents confirming G.Z.’s authority to act on behalf of the respective websites.

17.  The Government also argued that it was not the Azadliq newspaper, but Azadliq.info LLC who had participated in the domestic proceedings in respect of the blocking order concerning azadliq.info. Azadliq.info LLC was a separate legal entity and R.H. was its statutory representative who acted and was entitled to act on its behalf, and not G.Z. The present application should therefore have been lodged by Azadliq.info LLC itself on its own behalf, and not by G.Z in respect of the “website”.

18.  In respect of the fourth website, the Government noted that it was not clear whether Vereinigung für die Demokratie e.V owned or only administered meydan.tv. If it owned meydan.tv, then the company itself should have lodged the present application on its own behalf. If it was not the owner, the application should have been lodged by the legal entity or individual who was.

19.  The Government also argued that the domestic remedies had not been exhausted in respect of the second and third websites, because no appeals had been lodged in respect of them against the judgment of the first-instance court. The Government also argued that the websites had not suffered a significant disadvantage as a result of the blocking of access.

20.  The lawyers who lodged the application in respect of the websites contested the Government’s submissions, arguing that the websites enjoyed “legal protection” as “informal media organisations” under “international human rights law” and that, therefore, the websites could lodge the application with the Court as “associations”. They further argued that since the websites had been recognised as “parties” in the domestic proceedings, they had legal standing before the Court.

21.  As regards G.Z.’s authority to act on behalf of the websites, the representatives referred to two separate statements signed by four individuals described as “staff members” of the Azadliq newspaper and five “staff members” from Turan TV (and kanalturan.com). With similar wording, the statements specified that those staff members “authorised” G.Z. to represent the respective websites before the Court in his capacity as editor-in-chief. Referring to a similar statement signed by two individuals described as “staff members” of Meydan TV (meydan.tv) – one of whom was E.A. himself – they argued that E.A. had been authorised by meydan.tv’s staff to represent the website before the Court.

22.  As to the Government’s objection concerning the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, it was noted that the second and third websites lacked legal standing under Azerbaijani law as they were unregistered legal entities and, therefore, could not lodge appeals with courts. Moreover, they argued that, in any case, it would be futile for those websites to lodge appeals because the domestic courts had dismissed similar appeals in respect of the other two websites.

23.  The Court notes, first, the Government’s argument that a website, as such, is not a “person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals” for the purpose of Article 34 of the Convention.

24.  In their observations, in response to the Government’s objection in that regard, the representatives acting on behalf of the websites argued that the websites were “informal media organisations”. However, the Court notes that in the application form no mention was made of any such “informal media organisations” behind the “applicant websites” in question. Moreover, the Court observes that, according to both parties’ submissions, the websites azadliq.info and meydan.tv were owned by formally registered legal entities, Azadliq.info LLC and Vereinigung für die Demokratie e.V. respectively. The Court therefore finds that the representatives’ argument that the websites were acting as “informal media organisations” before the Court, while also admitting that they were owned by the above-mentioned legal entities, appears to be misleading or at least self-contradictory.

25.  While Article 34 of the Convention does not require potential applicant organisations to be formally registered as legal entities in order to lodge an application with the Court (see, for example, APEH Üldözötteinek Szövetsége and Others v. Hungary, no. 32367/96, § 1, ECHR 2000-X), this holds true when the application is lodged on behalf of an organisation (association, foundation and so on), and not on behalf of a website which, in its essence, is a collection of files and information accessed through a website address and is normally owned and managed by a particular person or an organisation. Accordingly, the Court concludes that a website does not fall under any category of applicants specified in Article 34 of the Convention and that complaints concerning interferences with the functioning of a website should be lodged, on their own behalf and in their own name, by the person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals who owns and operates the website (see, for example, Standard Verlagsgesellschaft mbH v. Austria (no. 3), no. 39378/15, § 5, 7 December 2021; OOO Flavus and Others v. Russia, nos. 12468/15 and 2 others, § 4, 23 June 2020; and Magyar Tartalomszolgáltatók Egyesülete and Index.hu Zrt v. Hungary, no. 22947/13, § 5, 2 February 2016). Therefore, in the present case, although the application has been lodged on behalf of the websites themselves as the “applicants” (with their URL addresses indicated as their names in the application form, and them referred to as the “applicant websites” throughout), it is not in compliance with Article 34 of the Convention.

26.  In this connection, the Court further notes that, even though azadliq.info and meydan.tv were owned by the above-mentioned companies, Azadliq.info LLC and Vereinigung für die Demokratie e.V respectively, the present application has not been lodged by the companies owning them (compare and contrast RFE/RL Inc. and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 56138/18 and 3 others, §§ 5-6, 13 June 2024). Moreover, the Court notes that no relevant company documents were submitted to the Court indicating that G.Z. was an “editor-in-chief” of the first three websites and E.A. was a “director” of meydan.tv. Nor had any document or evidence demonstrating that they had been duly authorised by Azadliq.info LLC and Vereinigung für die Demokratie e.V to act on their behalf before the Court been provided at any stage of the proceedings. In fact, having regard to all the material available in the case file, including the original application form and all further submissions and documents, the Court cannot establish a clear and unequivocal intent by the mentioned companies to complain, on their own behalf and in their own name, of the alleged violation of their rights or to authorise, in an appropriate manner, any person to do so in their stead.

27.  The available material in the case file does not indicate who owned the second and third websites. If G.Z. personally owned those websites, after he had “founded” them as stated by the representatives (see paragraph 5 above), then he himself should have been indicated as the applicant in the application form, because, as the owner of the website, he would have been the “direct victim” of the alleged violation.

28.  As to the statements signed by the persons who were supposedly staff members of three of the websites (see paragraph 21 above), the Court notes that those were apparently submitted, firstly, as documents attempting to show that G.Z. and E.A. were authorised to act on behalf of the “applicant websites” and, secondly, in support of the above-mentioned and subsequently made argument that all four websites were “informal media organisations” comprised of their staff members. However, the Court notes that (i) as mentioned above, no reference to such “informal media organisations” was made in the original application form; the staff members’ statements refer to themselves as the staff of the Azadliq newspaper, Turan TV and Meydan TV without clarifying their legal status; (ii) the original application form was not lodged by the websites’ staff as an informal group of individuals and their names were not mentioned in it; (iii) there is no document in the case file proving those individuals’ affiliation with the websites or, in the case of the first and fourth websites in particular, the companies owning them (for example, employment or service contracts, journalists’ badges, or any other relevant evidence); (iv) in the circumstances of the present case and for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention and Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, the supposed staff members of the websites, who allegedly collectively formed an “informal media organisation”, were not in a position to designate a “organisation official” authorised to act on behalf of that “informal media organisation” and should have lodged the application in their own names as members of that “informal media organisation”, or they should have authorised G.Z. or E.A. or the relevant lawyers to do so by individually signing the relevant authorisation forms in accordance with Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, which they did not do.

29.  Consequently, no clear legal grounds can be established on the basis of which G.Z. acted as the “organisation official” by signing the application form on behalf of the first, second and third “applicant websites”, and E.A. on behalf of the fourth “applicant website”.

30.  As regards the argument that the websites had standing to lodge an application before the Court because they had been recognised as parties in the relevant domestic proceedings, the Court notes, firstly, that in the specific context of the domestic proceedings concerning the MTCHT’s request to the court to block access to the websites in question, the names of the websites were indicated in the relevant application and the first-instance court’s judgment (the court also referred to Azadliq.info LLC as the party in respect of the first website). Secondly, as to the further proceedings following the appeals lodged in respect of the first and fourth websites, it notes that, even though both appeals were formally lodged on behalf of the azadliq.info and meydan.tv websites, the domestic courts recognised Azadliq.info LLC as the party in respect of the first website (and not the “website” itself), but referred to the fourth website, meydan.tv itself as the party (and not Vereinigung für die Demokratie e.V.) for reasons that remain unexplained to the Court. However, in this connection, the Court notes that this element (designation as a “party” in the domestic court documents concerning the blocking of access to the website) alone is not decisive, as the notion of “victim” is interpreted autonomously in the Convention system (see, mutatis mutandis, Kalfagiannis and Pospert v. Greece (dec.), no. 74435/14, § 47, 9 June 2020), even though the Court should have regard to the fact that an applicant was a party to the domestic proceedings (see Aksu v. Turkey [GC], nos. 4149/04 and 41029/04, § 52, ECHR 2012).

31.  Having had regard to all of the above considerations, and in view of the requirements of Article 34 of the Convention and Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, the Court notes that the material put before it does not allow it to clearly determine the identity of any applicant or applicants claiming to be the victim of the alleged violations of the Convention.

32.  In the light of the above considerations, the Court finds that it is unnecessary to examine the Government’s other objections and it concludes that the application must be rejected for want of an “applicant” for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention in respect of all four websites. In the circumstances of the case, the application must therefore be rejected for being incompatible ratione personae, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 22 May 2025.

 Olga Chernishova Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir
 Deputy Registrar President

Appendix

List of applicants:

Application no.
Case name
Introduction date

Websites’ names
 

Representatives’ names
Location

36589/17

Azadliq.info and Others v. Azerbaijan

21/06/2017

azadliq.info


azerbaycansaati.tv


kanalturan.com


meydan.tv
 

Ramute Remezaite
London

Javad Javadov

Baku

Samed Rahimli

Baku