THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 27329/19
Mustafa Mustafa oglu HAJILI
against Azerbaijan
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 1 April 2025 as a Chamber composed of:
Ioannis Ktistakis, President,
Peeter Roosma,
Lətif Hüseynov,
Darian Pavli,
Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir,
Úna Ní Raifeartaigh,
Mateja Đurović, judges,
and Milan Blaško, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 April 2019,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Mustafa Mustafa oglu Hajili, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1972 and lives in Baku. He was represented before the Court by Mr N. Karimli, a lawyer based in Baku.
2. The Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Əsgərov.
3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
4. The applicant is a journalist. At the material time, he was a member of the Musavat Party and the head of its press service. He was also the owner and editor-in-chief of the internet news portal bastainfo.com, which had been operational since 2015.
5. On 3 July 2018 an assassination attempt was made on the head of the Ganja City Executive Authority, which left him and his bodyguard seriously injured. The incident was followed by riots in Ganja during which two police officers were killed.
6. On 9 July 2018 the Prosecutor General’s Office published a press statement in connection with the above-mentioned events. It stated, inter alia, that some officials of various media resources and individuals had spread false and provocative information online in connection with the “premeditated act of terror” on 3 July 2018. The online publications in question had included false information and information prohibited by law for dissemination, inciting terrorism, the forcible seizure of power and the forcible change of the constitutional order, with the aim of confusing public opinion, breaching public and political order and casting a shadow over the measures taken by law-enforcement authorities in the fight against crime. The prosecuting authorities had instituted criminal proceedings under Articles 214-2 (public incitement to terrorism) and 281.1 (public incitement against the State) of the Criminal Code and were taking steps to identify the perpetrators. In addition, despite officials of the “internet information resources” criminal.az and bastainfo.com recently being given two warnings by the Prosecutor General’s Office for breaching the requirements of mass media legislation, the two websites had again breached those legal requirements by publishing, between 3 and 6 July 2018, various articles containing false and prohibited information aimed at confusing public opinion, breaching public order and creating distrust among citizens in measures taken by the State. Criminal proceedings had been instituted under Article 313 (forgery by an official) of the Criminal Code. In addition, officials from the above-mentioned two websites, as well as from topxeber.az and fia.az, had been called to the Prosecutor General’s Office and again given formal warnings. The Prosecutor General’s Office had also requested that the Ministry of Transport, Communication and High Technologies (“the MTCHT”) block access to the four websites and take measures to apply other relevant restrictions.
7. According to the applicant, from 9 July 2018 access to bastainfo.com was blocked and it was inaccessible in Azerbaijan.
8. On several occasions between 9 and 20 July 2018 the applicant was called in for questioning at the Baku city prosecutor’s office. Later that year, he was formally charged in the criminal proceedings referred to in the above‑mentioned press statement (see paragraph 6 above and, for more detail, paragraph 23 below).
9. During his questioning, the applicant learned from the prosecuting authorities that they considered three articles published on bastainfo.com in July 2018 to be problematic. According to the applicant, the articles had either been a full reproduction of articles originally published by the Turan News Agency or had referred to that agency as the original source of the information given.
10. On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a judicial complaint with Baku Administrative-Economic Court No. 1 against the Prosecutor General’s Office and the MTCHT under the Code of Administrative Procedure (“the CAP”). He argued that the prosecuting authority’s request to block access to the website had been unlawful and in breach of the Convention. In particular, he pointed out that bastainfo.com had either merely republished in full articles originally published by the Turan News Agency or had referred to that agency as the original source of the published information, and argued that the authorities’ actions were in breach of mass media legislation, which provided that the editor-in-chief or a journalist of a media resource was not responsible for the dissemination of false information published by another media resource. He asked the court for the following:
“I request the court to issue a decision on:
1. discontinuation (dayandırılması) of the Prosecutor General’s Office’s request to the [MTCHT] to restrict access to, and take measures to apply other restrictions in relation to, the internet information resource ‘bastainfo.com’;
2. recognition of a violation of [my] rights and freedoms under Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the [Convention].”
11. During the hearing at Baku Administrative-Economic Court No. 1, a representative of the Prosecutor General’s Office stated that the request it had sent to the MTCHT to apply blocking measures was related to the criminal proceedings instituted in that regard and that, therefore, complaints on the matter should be lodged with the courts of general jurisdiction under the procedure for judicial review of the acts and decisions of prosecuting authorities (hereinafter “judicial review procedure”) provided for by the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCrP”). A representative of the MTCHT stated that the Prosecutor General’s Office had requested by letter that the website be blocked and that the MTCHT had complied with that request without issuing a separate formal administrative decision.
12. By a decision of 18 September 2018 Baku Administrative-Economic Court No. 1 declared the applicant’s complaint inadmissible, holding that, contrary to the requirements of Article 37 of the CAP, the applicant had raised different claims against two different administrative bodies and had not precisely specified which part of the claims was directed against each defendant. The CAP did not allow different claims to be raised against several defendants within the same administrative complaint. Moreover, since part of the complaint concerned a request for “discontinuation” of the blocking request made by the Prosecutor General’s Office in connection with its procedural actions within a criminal case (and thus did not constitute “an activity of an administrative body” within the meaning of the Law on Administrative Procedure of 21 October 2005), the complaint, in that part, should not have been lodged with an administrative court but rather with the courts of general jurisdiction under the judicial review procedure provided for by the CCrP.
13. The applicant appealed, reiterating his arguments, disagreeing with the first-instance court’s decision as to inadmissibility and requesting an examination of the complaint on the merits.
14. On 31 October 2018 the Administrative-Economic Division of the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal, reiterating the first-instance court’s reasoning.
15. The applicant lodged a cassation appeal, stating in brief and very general terms that the appellate court’s decision was incorrect and in breach of substantive and procedural legal provisions, without expressly specifying which legal provisions.
16. By a decision of 13 February 2019 the Supreme Court refused to admit the cassation appeal for examination, finding that the applicant had appealed without indicating any legal grounds of appeal, as required by law. In particular, the court stated that he had not specified which substantive or procedural legal provisions had allegedly been breached by the appellate court and had failed to remedy this shortcoming, despite being given an opportunity and time to do so.
17. On 29 October 2018 the applicant lodged a civil claim against the Prosecutor General’s Office and the MTCHT. He essentially reiterated the arguments raised in his administrative complaint and also complained, inter alia, that the defendants’ actions were in breach of the requirements of the Law on Information, Informatisation and Protection of Information of 3 April 1998 (“the IIPI Law”). His claims were worded in the same manner as in his administrative complaint, namely asking for “discontinuation” of the Prosecutor General’s Office’s request to the MTCHT and a declaration of a violation of his rights under Articles 10 and 14 of the Convention (see paragraph 10 above).
18. On 30 November 2018, after a preliminary hearing, the Sabail District Court issued a decision to discontinue the civil proceedings (iş üzrə icraata xitam verilməsinə dair qərardad). It held that, since the restrictions applied to bastainfo.com were the result of procedural actions of the Prosecutor General’s Office within a criminal case, a review of the lawfulness of those actions was regulated by the CCrP. Therefore, the applicant’s claim could not be examined under the rules of civil procedure.
19. The applicant had a right to appeal within ten days but did not do so.
20. On 27 December 2018 the applicant lodged a complaint against the Prosecutor General’s Office and the MTCHT under the judicial review procedure provided for by the CCrP. He essentially reiterated the arguments made in his previous complaints and requested the annulment of the Prosecutor General’s Office’s request to the MTCHT, the lifting of the restrictions on bastainfo.com, and a declaration of a violation of his rights under Articles 10 and 14 of the Convention. It appears that during the examination of the complaint, the applicant stated that he was specifically complaining under Article 449.3.6 of the CCrP.
21. On 16 January 2019 the Sabail District Court rejected the complaint, finding that the subject matter did not fall to be examined under the judicial review procedure provided for by the CCrP. In particular, it stated that the request by the Prosecutor General’s Office had been made within its competence under the Law on the Prosecutor’s Office of 7 December 1999, but that it did not constitute a type of procedural step or decision of a compulsory or coercive nature, carried out or applied without a court decision, which could be challenged under the judicial review procedure, in particular under Article 449.3.6 of the CCrP. Moreover, in so far as the complaint was directed against the MTCHT, it was not a prosecuting authority and its actions or decisions could not therefore be challenged under the procedures provided for by the CCrP.
22. The applicant appealed. On 13 March 2019 the Criminal Division of the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s decision. No further appeal lay against that decision.
23. In the meantime, on 30 November 2018, in the above-mentioned criminal proceedings, the applicant was charged under Articles 281.2 (public incitement against the State, committed repeatedly or by a group of persons), 309.2 (exceeding official authority, with use or threat of use of force, or with use of weapons or other special means, or resulting in serious consequences) and 313 (forgery by an official) of the Criminal Code.
24. In a judgment dated 21 February 2019, the Baku Court of Serious Crimes convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him conditionally to five and a half years’ imprisonment with two years’ probation, and a two‑year ban on holding public office. Following a series of appeals, in a final decision dated 13 November 2019 (sent to the applicant on 30 December 2019), the Supreme Court upheld his conviction and sentence.
25. Complaints concerning the fairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicant and related complaints are the subject of a separate application lodged with the Court (application no. 39963/20).
RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK
26. The relevant provisions of the CAP provided as follows:
Article 2. Jurisdiction in administrative disputes
“2.1. Unless otherwise provided by law, judicial proceedings in administrative disputes are carried out by administrative-economic courts and administrative-economic divisions.
2.2. The following types of claims are examined in administrative court proceedings:
2.2.1. Claims contesting (seeking the annulment or amendment of) an administrative act adopted by an administrative body regarding the rights and duties of a person (claims contesting an administrative act (mübahisələndirmə haqqında iddia));
2.2.2. Claims seeking to compel an administrative body to issue an administrative act or to protect against inaction by an administrative body (claims for enforcement (məcburetmə haqqında iddia));
2.2.3. Claims seeking to compel an administrative body to perform certain actions not related to the adoption of an administrative act (claims for performance of obligations (öhdəliyin icrası haqqında iddia));
2.2.4. Claims for protection against unlawful interference by an administrative body not related to the adoption of an administrative act and directly violating the rights and freedoms of a person (claims to prevent certain actions (müəyyən hərəkətləri etməkdən çəkinməyə dair iddia));
2.2.5. Claims to determine the existence or non-existence of an administrative legal relationship, as well as seeking the invalidation of an administrative act (claims for determination or recognition (müəyyən etmə və ya tanınma haqqında iddia));
2.2.6. Claims to verify the legality of normative acts, except for matters within the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Azerbaijan (claims to verify lawfulness (qanunauyğunluq haqqında iddia));
2.2.7. Property claims related to the settlement of administrative disputes, as well as claims for compensation for damage caused by unlawful decisions (administrative acts) or actions (inaction) by administrative bodies; ...”
Article 13. The court’s duty to assist
“The court is obliged to assist participants in proceedings in eliminating formal errors made in lodged claims, clarifying unclear claims, replacing wrong types of claims with appropriate ones, completing incomplete factual information, as well as providing explanations that are important in terms of establishing and assessing the circumstances of the case.
...”
Article 35. Admissibility of a claim (iddianın mümkünlüyü)
“35.1. Unless otherwise provided for in this Code, a claim contesting an administrative act, for enforcement, for performance of obligations or to prevent certain actions is considered admissible in cases where the claimant substantiates the violation of his rights and interests protected by law as a result of the adoption or refusal to adopt an administrative act, or as a result of the action or inaction of an administrative body.
...
35.3. The court shall adopt a decision on the inadmissibility of a claim. That decision can be appealed against to a higher court.
...”
Article 37. Objectively combining several claims into one
“Several claims can be combined by the claimant into one complaint if they are related, directed against the same defendant and fall under the jurisdiction of the same court as provided for in this Code.”
27. The relevant parts of Article 449 of the CCrP provided as follows:
“449.2. The following persons shall have the right to lodge a complaint against procedural actions or decisions taken by a prosecuting authority:
449.2.1. the accused (suspected) person and his or her defence counsel;
449.2.2. the victim and his or her legal representative;
449.2.3. other persons whose rights and freedoms are violated as a result of the procedural decision or action.
449.3. The persons referred to in Article 449.2 ... shall have the right to lodge a complaint with a court against procedural actions or decisions taken by the prosecuting authority in connection with the following:
449.3.1 a refusal to accept a criminal complaint;
449.3.2. arrest and pre-trial detention;
449.3.3. a violation of the rights of a person who has been arrested, detained or placed under house arrest;
449.3.3-1. the transfer of a detained person from a pre-trial detention facility to a temporary detention facility;
449.3.4. torture or other cruel treatment of a detained person;
449.3.5. a refusal to institute criminal proceedings, or suspension or discontinuation of criminal proceedings;
449.3.6. the compulsory conduct of an investigative action without a court decision, the application of a coercive procedural measure or the conduct of a operational-search measure;
449.3.7. the removal of defence counsel of the accused (or suspected) person from the criminal proceedings ...”
28. The relevant parts of Article 13-3 of the IIPI Law provided as follows:
Article 13-3. Preventing the posting on internet information resources of information whose dissemination is prohibited
“13-3.1. When the relevant executive authority discovers that information whose dissemination is prohibited has been posted on an internet information resource, or determines this on the basis of substantiated information received from individuals, legal entities or State authorities, it shall give a written warning to the owner of the internet information resource and its domain name, and to the host provider.
13-3.2. If the information whose dissemination is prohibited is not removed from the internet information resource within eight hours of the warning, the relevant executive authority shall apply to the [relevant] district (city) court for an order restricting access to the internet information resource.
13-3.3. In urgent cases where there is a threat to the legally protected State or public interests or a real danger to people’s lives or health, access to the internet information resource shall be temporarily restricted by a decision of the relevant executive authority.
13-3.4. When the relevant executive authority adopts a decision provided for in Article 13-3.3 of this Law, it shall simultaneously [eyni zamanda] apply to the court for an order restricting access to the internet information resource. The decision temporarily restricting access to the internet information resource shall remain in force until the court has examined the application for the restriction of access, or until the annulment of that decision.
13-3.5. The court shall examine and deliver a decision on the application for the restriction of access to the internet information resource within five days. The decision shall be immediately enforceable, and the lodging of an appeal against it shall not suspend its execution ...”
29. Article 23 of the Law on the Prosecutor’s Office of 7 December 1999 provided as follows:
Article 23. Submission
“When exercising the powers provided for in this Law, the prosecutor shall make a submission to relevant organisations or officials on the elimination of violations of the law, as well as the causes and circumstances that gave rise to them.
The prosecutor shall be informed in writing, within one month, about the consideration of the submission and the measures taken.
When the submission is considered by a collegial body, the prosecutor must be informed of the time of the meeting at least three days in advance.
The prosecutor may participate in the consideration of the submission by the collegial body.
The prosecutor may also make a submission in other cases provided for in procedural legislation.”
30. Article 3 of the Law on Administrative Procedure of 21 October 2005 provided as follows:
Article 3. Scope of application of the Law
“3.1. The provisions of this Law apply to activities of the bodies defined (classified) by the legislation of the Republic of Azerbaijan as administrative bodies.
3.2. This Law does not apply to ...:
3.2.1. criminal procedure activities [of administrative bodies] in the framework of criminal prosecution;
3.2.2. activities [of administrative bodies] in the framework of cases on administrative offences ...”
COMPLAINTS
31. The applicant complained that the measure blocking access to his website had breached his rights under Article 10 of the Convention and also amounted to a violation of Articles 14 and 18 in conjunction with Article 10.
32. Relying on Article 13 in conjunction with Article 10, he also complained that there had been no effective domestic remedies available to him in respect of his complaints concerning the blocking of access to his website.
THE LAW
33. The applicant complained under Article 10 of the Convention that the blocking of access to his website had constituted an unjustified interference with his right to impart information. He also complained, under Articles 14 and 18, taken in conjunction with Article 10, that the measure had been applied to him in a discriminatory manner on account of his affiliation with an opposition political party and that it had pursued purposes not prescribed by the Convention. The relevant provisions read as follows:
Article 10
“1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”
Article 14
“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.”
Article 18
“The restrictions permitted under [the] Convention to the said rights and freedoms shall not be applied for any purpose other than those for which they have been prescribed.”
34. The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to comply with the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies in respect of his complaints under Articles 10, 14 and 18 of the Convention, either in substance or in accordance with the procedures provided by domestic law. In their submissions under Article 13 (see below), which in the Court’s view are equally pertinent to their objection of non-exhaustion, they further specified that there had been an effective remedy against the blocking of access to the website by the MTCHT, namely a complaint lodged with an administrative court against it in accordance with the CAP. While the applicant had lodged a complaint with Baku Administrative-Economic Court No. 1, he had failed to do so in accordance with the applicable procedures, which had resulted in the court declaring it inadmissible. In particular, he had named two different authorities as defendants and raised various claims against them, which was not allowed under the CAP. Although the grounds for inadmissibility had been explained by the court, the applicant had failed to lodge a new, corrected complaint in accordance with the applicable procedural law. Moreover, in the same administrative proceedings, his cassation appeal to the Supreme Court against the lower courts’ inadmissibility decisions had itself been inadmissible on different grounds, as it had not been drawn up in accordance with the requirements of the law. He had failed to indicate which substantive and procedural provisions of domestic law had allegedly been breached by the lower court. His appeal, which had only been one and a half pages long, had asked the Supreme Court in general terms to quash the lower court’s decision.
35. The applicant submitted that Baku Administrative-Economic Court No. 1 had declared his claim inadmissible on the grounds indicated (lodging one complaint against different defendants with different claims, and lack of jurisdiction as regards any claims directed against the Prosecutor General’s Office), even though, under Article 13 of the CAP, it had been required to assist him, as a party to the proceedings, in eliminating any formal errors in his complaint, clarifying any unclear claims, replacing wrong types of claims with appropriate ones, and so on. It had not provided such assistance to him and had declared his complaint inadmissible outright.
36. He further submitted that, even though he had pursued three different types of remedies (a complaint to the administrative court, a civil claim and a complaint under the judicial review procedure provided for by the CCrP), all his complaints had been declared inadmissible and had never been examined on the merits.
37. The obligation to exhaust domestic remedies requires an applicant to make normal use of remedies which are available and sufficient in respect of his or her Convention grievances. The existence of the remedies in question must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but in practice, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness (see Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 66, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV, and Communauté genevoise d’action syndicale (CGAS) v. Switzerland [GC], no. 21881/20, § 139, 27 November 2023).
38. Article 35 § 1 also requires that complaints intended to be made subsequently before the Court should have been made to the appropriate domestic body, at least in substance (see, for instance, Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, § 32, Series A no. 236; Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, §§ 144 and 146, ECHR 2010; and Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 37, ECHR 1999‑I) and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law and, further, that any procedural means that might prevent a breach of the Convention should have been used (see Akdivar and Others, cited above, § 66). Where an applicant has failed to comply with these requirements, his or her application should in principle be declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies (see, for example, Cardot v. France, 19 March 1991, § 34, Series A no. 200, and Thiermann and Others v. Norway (dec.), no. 18712/03, 8 March 2007).
39. The Court has, however, also frequently pointed out the need to apply the exhaustion rule with some degree of flexibility and without excessive formalism (see Ringeisen v. Austria, 16 July 1971, § 89, Series A no. 13; Akdivar and Others, cited above, § 69, and Communauté genevoise d’action syndicale (CGAS), cited above, § 140). It would, for example, be unduly formalistic to require the applicants to exercise a remedy which even the highest court of their country would not oblige them to exhaust (see D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, §§ 117 and 118, ECHR 2007‑IV).
40. As regards the burden of proof, it is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one, available in theory and in practice at the relevant time. Once this burden has been satisfied, it falls to the applicant to establish that the remedy advanced by the Government was in fact exhausted, or was for some reason inadequate and ineffective in the particular circumstances of the case, or that there existed special circumstances absolving him or her from this requirement (see Akdivar and Others, cited above, § 68; McFarlane v. Ireland [GC], no. 31333/06, § 107, 10 September 2010, and Communauté genevoise d’action syndicale (CGAS), cited above, § 143).
41. Turning to the present case, the Court notes, at the outset, that the applicant’s website was blocked by the MTCHT following a request from the Prosecutor General’s Office. While it appears that the latter was authorised to make such requests under Article 23 of the Law on the Prosecutor’s Office and, in the context of allegedly unlawful content published on an internet information resource, under Article 13-3.1 of the IIPI Law, it had no authority to block access to a website itself. It appears that only the MTCHT could either temporarily block access to a website pending a definitive court decision in this regard or apply to court for a blocking order (under Articles 13-3.2 to 13.3.5 of the IIPI Law). In the present case, it appears that the MTCHT simply blocked access without a court order or its own formal decision. Accordingly, even though the Prosecutor General’s Office was the body making the request, it did not actually block access to the applicant’s website. Instead, it was the MTCHT’s action that blocked access, which constituted the alleged interference with the applicant’s Convention rights (compare, mutatis mutandis, RFE/RL Inc. and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 56138/18 and 3 others, §§ 86 and 92 et seq., 13 June 2024). The Court therefore accepts the Government’s submission that, at domestic level, the applicant should have directed his grievances concerning the blocking measure against the MTCHT.
42. Furthermore, the Government submitted that the appropriate and available remedy in this regard would have been a complaint with an administrative court against the MTCHT in accordance with the CAP. The Court notes that the applicant did not argue and did not otherwise demonstrate in his reply to the Government’s observations that this remedy was or would have been, for some reason, irrelevant, inadequate or ineffective in the particular circumstances of his case, or that there were special circumstances absolving him from the requirement to use it. He merely stated that the relevant administrative court had not assisted him in correcting his claims, as required by the CAP, before declaring his complaint inadmissible, an argument that the Court will examine below.
43. The applicant did lodge a complaint with Baku Administrative-Economic Court No. 1 under the procedure indicated by the Government. However, it did not meet the formal requirements of domestic law. Indeed, it was directed against two defendants (and not just the MTCHT) and the claim asked the court for “discontinuation of the Prosecutor General’s Office’s request to the [MTCHT] to restrict access to ...bastainfo.com”, rather than expressly challenging the lawfulness of the MTCHT’s actions (see paragraph 10 above). Both this claim and the second claim asking in general terms for a declaration of a violation of the applicant’s rights under Articles 10 and 14 of the Convention were unclear as to which of these claims or which part of each claim was directed against which particular defendant. This constituted grounds for inadmissibility of the complaint under domestic law, and the domestic court set out the reasons for inadmissibility in its decision. The Court cannot detect any manifest arbitrariness in the reasoning provided, especially in the absence of any arguments by the applicant in this regard.
44. As to the applicant’s argument that the domestic court was obliged to assist him in correcting his complaint first, rather than declaring it inadmissible outright, the Court notes that one of the defendants referred to in the complaint was the Prosecutor General’s Office, a body whose actions, of the type involved in the case at hand, could not be challenged before the administrative courts. This constituted a further ground for inadmissibility of the applicant’s complaint. The Court notes, however, that the applicant did not raise at the domestic level, and in particular in his appeals to the higher courts, the same argument concerning the first-instance court’s obligation to assist him in correcting his complaint. Moreover, even if the domestic court was able, or even obliged, to examine the case of its own motion or to assist the applicant in eliminating errors in the complaint, but did not do so, the applicant was not dispensed from raising before it the complaint subsequently made to the Court (see, mutatis mutandis, Fu Quan, s.r.o. v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 24827/14, § 171, 1 June 2023, with further references). In the present case, the reasoning provided by the domestic court for the inadmissibility of his complaint was sufficiently clear to enable him to lodge a new complaint in compliance with the relevant domestic legal requirements. However, he did not do so and did not inform the Court what might have prevented him from doing so.
45. In this connection, the Court notes, lastly, that even assuming that the applicant’s complaint under the CAP should not have been, for any reason, declared inadmissible by the first-instance and appellate courts on the grounds mentioned and should have been examined on the merits, he failed to lodge a proper cassation appeal against their inadmissibility decisions with the Supreme Court. His cassation appeal was not drawn up in compliance with the domestic legal requirements, and he did not correct this error despite being given the opportunity to do so, resulting in the Supreme Court’s decision not to accept the appeal for examination.
46. As to the other two remedies pursued by the applicant, the Court notes as follows. It appears that the civil claim lodged by him, which was again lodged against both authorities simultaneously and essentially reiterated the same claims as in the administrative complaint, was not the appropriate remedy in the present case, given that the MTCHT’s alleged unlawful interference with his rights was the subject of a complaint before the administrative courts and that the prosecuting authority’s actions could not be challenged before a civil court. In any event, even if that was not the case, the applicant failed to lodge an appeal against the first-instance court’s inadmissibility decision.
47. Lastly, the judicial review procedure provided for by the CCrP was not an appropriate remedy against the MTCHT, as it is not a prosecuting authority. Moreover, in so far as part of the applicant’s complaint lodged under that procedure was directed against the Prosecutor General’s Office, it was in any event not an adequate avenue of redress for the purposes of exhaustion of domestic remedies in respect of the alleged violations of the Convention in the present case, because, as stated above, the alleged actual interference with the applicant’s Convention rights was caused by the actions of the MTCHT and not by the Prosecutor General’s Office.
48. Accordingly, this part of the application must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
49. The applicant complained that there had been no effective domestic remedies available to him in respect of his grievances concerning the blocking of access to his website. He relied on Article 13, which provides as follows:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
50. The Government submitted that there had been an effective remedy available to the applicant against the MTCHT’s blocking of his website, namely a complaint to an administrative court against it under the CAP challenging the alleged unlawfulness of the measure. However, even though the applicant had applied to an administrative court, his complaint had failed to meet the formal requirements of domestic law. The applicant reiterated that, even though he had pursued three different types of remedies, all his complaints had been declared inadmissible and his case had never been examined on the merits.
51. In view of the foregoing (see paragraphs 41-48 above) and the applicant’s failure to submit any relevant arguments demonstrating that the available remedy indicated by the Government would have been ineffective in general or in the particular circumstances of the case, the Court finds that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, by a majority,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 24 April 2025.
Milan Blaško Ioannis Ktistakis
Registrar President