Background
Anar Mammadov, a journalist and chief editor of the Azerbaijani news website criminal.az, published articles discussing possible reasons for the July 2018 assassination attempt on the head of the Ganja City Executive Authority. The articles repeated allegations and commentary from other sources concerning the official’s treatment of residents and suggested that public dissatisfaction might explain the attack.
Prosecutors questioned Mammadov, seized two mobile telephones, a laptop, and company documents, and inspected the telephones. The seizure at his home was conducted without prior judicial authorization. Mammadov was subsequently convicted of making open calls against the State, exceeding official authority, and forgery by an official. The final domestic judgment imposed five years and three months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years, and a two-year ban on holding public office. His property was retained for approximately five years and allegedly returned unusable.
The Court’s Holding
The European Court of Human Rights unanimously found violations of Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The domestic courts had failed to assess the articles in context, establish that they were likely to encourage violence, or explain convincingly how the journalist’s reporting constituted calls against the State, abuse of authority, or official forgery. Their reasons were not relevant and sufficient, and the lengthy suspended prison sentence was not justified as necessary in a democratic society.
The seizures and inspection of Mammadov’s devices were not in accordance with domestic law, violating his rights to respect for private life, home, and correspondence. The unlawful seizure and arbitrary retention of his possessions also violated his property rights; continued retention of the telephones was disproportionate because they had not been recognized as material evidence. The Court found no violation of Article 18 taken with Article 10 because an ulterior purpose behind the prosecution had not been established beyond reasonable doubt, and it found no need separately to examine the Article 13 complaint concerning property rights.
The Court awarded Mammadov EUR 6,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses, while rejecting his unsupported claim for pecuniary damage.
Key Takeaways
- Criminal punishment of reporting on a matter of legitimate public interest requires domestic courts to examine the publication’s context, capacity to cause harm, and actual likelihood of encouraging violence.
- A suspended custodial sentence remains a serious interference with journalistic expression because the conviction and criminal record can produce lasting professional and chilling effects.
- Seizing and inspecting a journalist’s electronic devices must comply with governing legal safeguards, and authorities cannot arbitrarily retain property that has not been recognized as evidence.
Why It Matters
The judgment reinforces that national-security terminology cannot substitute for a concrete, context-sensitive analysis of allegedly dangerous journalism. Courts must demonstrate why particular expression presents a genuine risk and why criminal sanctions are proportionate.
It also connects press freedom with privacy and property protections: investigative authorities must follow lawful procedures when accessing journalists’ devices and must justify retaining seized equipment throughout the proceedings.