FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 48460/11
THE PUBLIC UNION FOR ASSISTANCE IN ECONOMIC INITIATIVES
against Azerbaijan
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 17 October 2023 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. 48460/11) 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 20 July 2011 by The Public Union For Assistance In Economic Initiatives, a non‑governmental organisation registered in 2006 and based in Baku (“the applicant organisation”) which was represented by Mr R. Hajili and Mr F. Namazli, lawyers based in Strasbourg and Baku;
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 application concerns an alleged breach of the applicant organisation’s rights of access to State‑held information of public interest and to a fair trial in civil proceedings instituted in this regard.
2. On 28 April 2010 the applicant organisation requested from the Cabinet of Ministers a copy of its Executive Order no. 19s dated 28 January 2010 related to State capital investments. This Executive Order was published on the online legislation database maintained by the Ministry of Justice, on the day of its enactment (e-qanun.az). Having received no response, the applicant organisation lodged an action, which was rejected by the Sabayil District Court and the Baku Court of Appeal, in reference to legal provisions related to the Law on Access to Information (see, Rovshan Hajiyev v. Azerbaijan, nos. 19925/12 and 47532/13, §§ 25-37, 9 December 2021). On 25 January 2011 the Supreme Court upheld these judgments.
3. The applicant organisation complained under Article 10 of the Convention that the refusal to provide the information requested had amounted to a breach of the right to access information. It further argued under Article 6 that its right to access to a court and to a reasoned decision had been violated.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
4. The Government indicated in particular that the relevant Executive Order was publicly available on the online legislation database maintained by the Ministry of Justice. The applicant organisation contested the Government’s objections.
5. For the relevant case-law, the Court refers to Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary ([GC], no. 18030/11, §§ 156-70, 8 November 2016), and Mikiashvili and Others v. Georgia ((dec.), nos. 18865/11 and 51865/11, § 55, 19 January 2021).
6. Regarding the complaint under Article 10 of the Convention, the Court has difficulty accepting the applicant organisation’s submissions that its request for the Executive Order, which was a document publicly available on the internet, on the official electronic database of the Ministry of Justice, constituted a matter of public interest requiring such a formalistic approach. The applicant organisation did not reasonably explain the purpose of its request, did not specify any argument that would have prevented it from having access to this public information, or any other difficulty that might have impeded the exercise of its right to access to information. It cannot be established either that it requested the information with the purpose of conducting any genuine research on issues of public interest or that an individualised answer was necessary for proceeding further. Consequently, no restriction on the applicant organisation’s right of access to information arose in the present case. It follows that this complaint must be rejected as being incompatible ratione materiae with Article 10 of the Convention, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
7. Regarding the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, even assuming that this provision is applicable, it has not been demonstrated that the decisions of the domestic courts were arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable to the point of prejudicing the fairness of the proceedings or resulting in a “denial of justice”. In such circumstances, this complaint is of a “fourth‑instance” nature (Namazli v. Azerbaijan (dec.), no. 28203/10, § 45, 7 June 2022) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 9 November 2023.
Liv Tigerstedt Krzysztof Wojtyczek
Deputy Registrar President
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy