Published on 19 May 2025
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 36354/15
VIRJINA KICHIK MUASSISASI
against Azerbaijan
lodged on 9 July 2015
communicated on 29 April 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the refusal by the National Television and Radio Council (the NTRC) to grant the applicant company a licence for cable television broadcasting.
Between 2009 and 2014 the applicant company sent several individual requests to the NTRC outside of the tender procedure, asking for a licence for cable broadcasting.
According to the Law on Television and Radio Broadcasting of 2002, a licence was required for cable television broadcasting, which was to be regulated by a special law to be adopted. However, no such law regulating the cable television has ever been adopted.
The NTRC refused all of its requests stating that the requests would be considered when the relevant law on cable broadcasting was adopted. Following the refusals, S.N., the director of the applicant company, lodged a claim against the NTRC with Baku Administrative-Economic Court No. 1, requesting the court to order the NTRC to grant a licence for cable broadcasting to the applicant company. On 1 July 2014 the court dismissed the claim noting that there had been no calls for tenders for a cable broadcasting licence, that the applicant company had not participated in such a call for tenders and had not been declared a winner, and that, therefore, it had not met the requirements of the relevant laws to obtain the licence. In its appeal, the applicant company pointed out that the NTRC had recently granted a licence to another company and had extended the validity of other licences without the tender procedure. This argument was not expressly addressed by the courts. By a final decision of 18 February 2015, the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ judgments.
Meanwhile, on different dates between 2009 and 2014 the applicant company and S.N. were warned and fined for installing and operating unregistered communication equipment and for illegal entrepreneurship under Articles 169 and 199 of the old Code on Administrative Offences of 11 July 2000, respectively. S.N. was also convicted of illegal entrepreneurship (broadcasting without having the relevant licence) under Article 192 of the Criminal Code.
Relying on Articles 6 and 10 of the Convention, the applicant company complains that its right to a reasoned decision and right to freedom of expression have been violated.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicant company have a fair hearing in the determination of its civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant company’s right to a reasoned decision respected?
2. Has there been an interference with the applicant company’s freedom of expression, in particular its right to impart information and ideas, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention? Did the alleged interference in the present case fall within the State’s margin of appreciation in the realm of media licensing, to which reference is expressly made in Article 10 § 1? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2? Have any calls for tenders been announced for a cable broadcasting licence during the period complained of? Have there been any instances of licences having been granted without tender procedure during that period?