.png)
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has ruled that Azerbaijan violated Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights by refusing to grant a broadcasting license to Objective Television and Radio Broadcasting Company. The case (Objective Television and Radio Broadcasting Company and Others v. Azerbaijan, application no. 257/12) exposes deep-rooted political interference and lack of transparency in Azerbaijan’s media licensing system. Mehman Aliyev, the owner and director of the Turan Information Agency, and Emin Huseynov, the chairman of the Institute for Reporters’ Freedom and Safety (IRFS) - two owners of the applicant company were also found as victims within the meaning of Article 34.
The ruling sheds light on the politically motivated decision by the National Television and Radio Council (NTRC) to deny the broadcasting license to Objective Television and Radio Broadcasting Company while awarding it instead to Golden Prince LLC, a company linked to high-ranking government officials. The Court found that the licensing process lacked fairness, transparency, and impartiality, reinforcing longstanding concerns about Azerbaijan’s suppression of independent media.
A Politically Motivated Licensing Process
The NTRC, established by presidential decree in 2003, has been heavily criticized for its complete dependency on the President’s Office. The Court noted that all nine members of the NTRC were presidential appointees, with no transparent procedures or public consultations in place. At the time of the case, key figures within the NTRC had strong ties to the ruling elite, including Ali Hasanov, a senior official in the President’s Office, the Head of the Social-Political department, whose spouse, Sona Veliyeva, served as deputy chairman of the NTRC.
The ECtHR ruling highlights that the NTRC’s decision-making process lacked objective criteria and was instead influenced by political considerations:
“At the relevant time, the NTRC members were appointed directly by the President – apparently without any public consultative process or prior nomination or selection procedures [...]. This does not appear to have been in accordance with the guidelines appended to Committee of Ministers Recommendation Rec(2000)23, which recommended that the members of regulatory authorities be appointed in a democratic and transparent manner.”
During the bidding process, Objective Television and Radio Broadcasting Company was unfairly sidelined, while Golden Prince LLC was favored despite its ownership structure remaining unknown at the time. Investigations by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) later revealed that Golden Prince LLC was controlled by the son of Sona Veliyeva - Shamkhal Hasanli. Ali Hasanov has later confirmed his personal relation to this case in an interview with the BBC.
A Clear Violation of Media Freedom
The ECtHR found that the NTRC’s refusal to grant a license constituted an unjustified interference with the applicants’ right to impart information and ideas, a cornerstone of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Court criticized the lack of due reasoning in the NTRC’s decision, noting that no proper evaluation of the applicants' bids was conducted, and the selection process was riddled with arbitrary and opaque decision-making:
“The Court agrees with the applicants that the minutes could not be considered to constitute a duly reasoned decision demonstrating that the applicant company had been denied the licence after an adequate evaluation of the submitted bids. Indeed, during the meeting, several NTRC members made oral remarks that mentioned certain other factors (which they deemed to be favourable for Golden Prince LLC’s bid) that corresponded to some of the selection criteria outlined by the relevant law – such as its technical capabilities (equipment), staffing potential and broadcasting concept. However, the Court cannot but note that those remarks were very general and short (just a few phrases each), and lacked any specifics as to why exactly those NTRC members considered that Golden Prince LLC’s bid better corresponded to those criteria.”
Furthermore, the Court emphasized that not all available broadcasting frequencies in Azerbaijan were in use at the time. It highlighted that between 2007 and 2009, the broadcasting licenses of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Voice of America, and the BBC were revoked, and the affected frequencies remained unassigned. The Court underscored that no new licenses were granted to local independent media outlets, except in select areas such as Baku and Nakhchivan. This pattern of regulatory decisions, the Court noted, further demonstrated a systematic effort to restrict media plurality in Azerbaijan.
Insufficient Compensation and Azerbaijan’s Non-Compliance
The applicants claimed a lump sum of 100,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage; EUR 20,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage; and EUR 5,100 for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court. Nevertheless, the Court ruled only:
(i) EUR 4,500 (four thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; (ii) EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses.
This award is grossly disproportionate to the actual damage suffered, particularly given the lengthy judicial process spanning over a decade. The inadequate compensation fails to reflect the seriousness of the violations and sends a weak message to the Azerbaijani government, which continues to disregard the Court’s rulings with impunity. For more than a year, Azerbaijan has been the leading country in non-compliance with ECtHR decisions, further highlighting the failure of the international legal system to enforce its judgments effectively.
By consistently awarding minimal compensation in human rights cases, the Court risks undermining the enforcement of its own decisions. Higher compensation amounts are necessary to pressure Azerbaijan into compliance and ensure meaningful redress for victims. The paltry sum awarded in this case is yet another example of the ECtHR’s failure to hold persistent violators accountable in a meaningful way.
Comments