On February 2, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) announced decisions on three applications from Azerbaijan.
The applicants complained about the violation of freedom of expression, a fair trial, property, etc., Khalid Agaliyev, an expert in the field of media law, told Turan. In the case of Sardar Alibeyli v. Azerbaijan, there was a complaint against two sentences over 2009 for defamation and insult.
Sardar Alibeyli, the founder of “Nota” newspaper, was imprisoned for 3 months at the suit of Tahmasib Novruzov, head of the Association of Freedom Defenders. Consequences considered an insult and slander publication in Nota about his alleged financial fraud.
Alibeyli’s sentence was increased after he published material about financial violations in the Internal Troops. The ECHR considered that the criminal prosecution of the applicant constituted an interference with his right to freedom of expression.
The European Court of Human Rights ORDERED to pay the applicant EUR 2,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for legal costs.
In the case of Agshin Garayev v. Azerbaijan case, a violation of property rights was contested. Agshin Garayev, the owner of the “Maxima” company, complained about the seizure and retention of property – 28 gas turbines in the framework of a criminal case on embezzlement in 1997.
The ECHR ruled that property rights had been violated and the state must immediately return the 28 gas turbines to the applicant in good condition or pay him compensation. In addition, the applicant should be paid 4,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage and legal costs.
In another case, the applicant was Khalid Agaliyev himself. The complaint concerned the refusal of the AzTV state television company to respond to its information request. How much money was allocated to this structure from the state budget in 2009? What part of these funds was directed to the salaries of employees, what were the salaries of executives, how much money was spent on repairing buildings, buying vehicles content of the site? The ECHR declared the applicant’s complaint “inadmissible”.