Published on 19 February 2024
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 18180/14
Ramin JABRAYILZADE
against Azerbaijan
lodged on 17 December 2013
communicated on 1 February 2024
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns an alleged violation of the right of access of the applicant, who is a journalist, to allegedly State-held information of public interest and his right to a fair trial in the administrative proceedings initiated by him in this regard.
The applicant submitted an information request to the Presidential Administration asking for the list of prominent figures (artists, sportsmen, etc.) who had recently been granted flats by presidential orders, information about the sources of housing funds to which these flats had belonged and whether any other executive authorities were authorised to grant flats to individuals from those housing funds.
Having received no response, the applicant lodged a claim against the Presidential Administration with the domestic courts asking the courts to order the respondent authority to provide the requested information. By a decision of 24 December 2012, Baku Administrative-Economic Court No.1 declared the claim inadmissible referring to Article 35.3 of the Code on Administrative Procedure and stating that the Presidential Administration was not on the list of the administrative bodies approved by the Cabinet of Ministers.
On 26 February and 19 June 2013, respectively, the Baku Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeals.
Relying on Articles 6, 10 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant complains of an allegedly unlawful interference with his right of access to information, breach of his right to a fair trial, and the lack of effective domestic remedies.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?
2. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, in particular his right to receive and impart information, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention (see, in particular, Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary [GC], no. 18030/11, 8 November 2016)? If so, was the interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2 in pursuit of a legitimate aim?
3. Did the applicant have access to a court in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
4. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 10 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?