003-7456028-10216849

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 307 (2022)   06.10.2022   Freedom of expression no excuse for publishing inaccurate and unreliable   information   In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case of Khural and Zeynalov v. Azerbaijan (application   no. 55069/11) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:   no violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The case concerned the civil liability of the Khural newspaper for publishing defamatory statements   about a well-known high-ranking government official.   The Court noted in particular that, although the newspaper could claim to have a public “watchdog”   function, reporting on issues of high public interest, it also had a duty to act in good faith in order to   provide accurate and reliable information in accordance with the ethics of journalism. The Court   found that the newspaper had failed in its “duties and responsibilities” under Article 10 of the   Convention.   Principal facts   The first applicant, Khural, is a newspaper published in Baku. It has legal personality under   Azerbaijani law. The second applicant, Avaz Tapdig oglu Zeynalov, a founder and the editor-in-chief   of Khural, was born in 1970 and lives in Baku.   In May 2010 an article concerning a well-known high-ranking government official, the head of the   President’s Office, Ramiz Mehdiyev, and his alleged relationships with a prominent Azerbaijani poet,   Bakhtiyar Vahabzade, and with the former head of the executive authority in Sheki, Ashraf   Mammadov, was published in Khural. The article suggested that Mr Mehdiyev hated Mr Vahabzad   and had tried, without success, to prevent his being elected as a Member of Parliament in 2000; had   organised a riot against Mr Mammadov in Sheki because he had not prevented Mr Vahabzad’s re-   election; had tried to have Mr Vahabzad’s mandate as an MP called off; and had prevented him from   being commemorated following his death.   The following month, Mr Mehdiyev lodged a civil action against Khural arguing that the article   contained false statements damaging his honour, dignity, and professional reputation, and alleging   that the title of the article and certain extracts in particular were defamatory.   The first-instance court found that the allegations in the article were statements affecting   Mr Mehdiyev’s reputation and lacking any factual basis, that Khural had failed to submit any   evidence proving those allegations and that the article amounted to an abuse of the right to   freedom of expression. It ordered the newspaper to issue an apology, to refute the statements and   to pay 10,000 Azerbaijani Manat (AZN) (which at the time was equivalent to approximately   10,000 euros (EUR)) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be transferred to an orphanage as   requested by the plaintiff.   1. Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery,   any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges   considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final   judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.   Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.   The newspaper appealed, arguing that by publishing the article it had performed its role of public   “watchdog”, reporting on topics of high public interest; that Mr Mehdiyev, who was a well-known   high-ranking government official, should have been more tolerant of criticism; that the statements   made in the article constituted value judgments and therefore no proof was required; and that the   article merely reproduced and commented on information that had been published earlier that   month in the Gundam Khabar newspaper.   The Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s judgment, and the Supreme Court   dismissed a subsequent cassation appeal as unfounded.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   The applicants complained under Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention that the civil   defamation proceedings against the newspaper and the ensuing penalty had breached their right to   freedom of expression. The Khural newspaper argued that the penalty imposed on it for non-   pecuniary damage had been unduly harsh and excessive and had caused its closure.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 17 August 2011.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Síofra O’Leary (Ireland), President,   Mārtiņš Mits (Latvia),   Lətif Hüseynov (Azerbaijan),   Ivana Jelić (Montenegro),   Mattias Guyomar (France),   Kateřina Šimáčková (the Czech Republic),   Mykola Gnatovskyy (Ukraine),   and also Victor Soloveytchik, Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   The Court observed that the Khural newspaper possessed a legal personality as a registered media   entity and consequently had its own rights and responsibilities, distinct from those of its founder and   editor-in-chief. As the latter had not been a party to the domestic civil defamation proceedings and   had not claimed to be the author of the article, the domestic proceedings could not be said to have   affected him as a journalist. Therefore, the Court found that he was not a victim of the alleged   violation of Article 10, and rejected this part of the application.   In cases concerning a conflict between the right to reputation and the right to freedom of   expression, the Court reiterated that domestic courts were expected to perform a balancing exercise   between the two rights, applying the criteria established in the Court’s relevant case-law and basing   their decisions on relevant and sufficient reasons. Finding that the domestic courts had failed to   carry out the required balancing exercise between the newspaper’s freedom of expression and   Mr Mehdiyev’s rights and interests under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the   Convention, it did so itself, on the basis of the criteria generally applicable to the dissemination of   statements affecting private life by the media – namely, whether the article in question had   contributed to a debate of public interest, the degree of notoriety of the person affected, the   content and form of the statements made, the way in which the information had been obtained and   its veracity, and the nature and severity of the penalty imposed.   It found that the statements made in the article could be seen to contribute to a debate of public   interest because they were about issues such as parliamentary elections, and the person concerned,   Mr Mehdiyev, as the head of the President’s Office, was a well-known high-ranking government   official. Given that he was a public figure, the limits on acceptable criticism of him were wider.   Whereas the Court acknowledged that some of the statements had been charged with subjective   feelings and emotions and could be deemed to be “value judgments”, the article had mainly referred   to specific dates, persons, and incidents, which the Court considered to be assertions of facts. It   observed that the newspaper had not demonstrated that it had checked them for truthfulness.   Although it could claim to have a public “watchdog” function, reporting on issues of high public   interest, the newspaper also had a duty to act in good faith in order to provide accurate and reliable   information in accordance with the ethics of journalism. The Court concluded that the newspaper   had failed in its “duties and responsibilities” under Article 10 of the Convention.   Regarding the nature and severity of the penalty imposed, the newspaper had not complained of its   severity before the domestic courts, nor contested the measures taken to enforce it. Moreover, no   documents had been submitted to the domestic courts or to the Court detailing its financial situation   at the time. Consequently, there was nothing to show that the penalty had undermined its financial   situation to such a degree and had led to its closure as claimed. Moreover, it appeared that Khural   had ceased its paper version only; its Internet version (www.xural.com) had remained active and had   continued to publish. Furthermore, according to an article on its website, the failure to publish a   paper version of Khural had been due to the lack of a publisher.   The Court concluded that there had been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention.   The judgment is available only in English.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,   judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive   the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter   @ECHR_CEDH.   Press contacts   [email protected] | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08   We would encourage journalists to send their enquiries via email.   Jane Swift (tel.: + 33 3 88 41 29 04)   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel.: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Denis Lambert (tel.: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Inci Ertekin (tel.: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)   Neil Connolly (tel.: + 33 3 90 21 48 05)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe member   States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   3