Introduction
On 6 October 2026, the European Court of Human Rights (Third Section) delivered its judgment in the case of Anar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan (Applications nos. 12043/19 and 50484/20; ECLI:CE:ECHR:2026:1006JUD001204319). The case was brought by Mr Anar Shahin oglu Mammadov, an Azerbaijani national born in 1979 and resident in Baku, who works as a journalist and serves as chief editor of the news website criminal.az.
The proceedings before the Court arose from criminal proceedings instituted against the applicant in Azerbaijan and from a seizure operation conducted at his flat in connection with those proceedings. The applicant lodged two separate applications — on 19 February 2019 and 23 October 2020 respectively — raising complaints under Articles 8, 10, 13 and 18 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as well as under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
The Chamber, presided over by Judge Ioannis Ktistakis and composed of six further judges, deliberated in private on 8 September 2026 before adopting the judgment. This article examines the factual background, the legal issues considered by the Court, and the principal findings reached in respect of each Convention provision at issue.
Factual background
The applicant had previously received formal warnings from the prosecuting authorities in 2015 and 2017 in relation to articles published on criminal.az, which were alleged to contain false and biased information. According to the judgment, there is no information in the case file to suggest that the applicant challenged those warnings before the domestic courts at the time.
On 3 July 2018, an assassination attempt was made on the head of the Ganja City Executive Authority, referred to in the judgment as E.V. Both E.V. and his bodyguard were seriously injured. The incident was followed by riots in Ganja during which two police officers were killed.
Between 3 and 5 July 2018, the applicant published several articles on criminal.az discussing the possible causes of the assassination attempt. Two of those articles subsequently formed the basis of the criminal charges brought against him. The first article, whose title translates broadly as 'Scandalous and troublesome journey of shot head of Ganja – behind the scenes with the headbutting General [R.M.]', discussed, among other matters, alleged conflicts between E.V. and a former Ganja police chief, and included accounts described in the article itself as rumours or unverified reports. The second article, titled roughly as 'The Ganja events follow [E.V.]'s rudeness', similarly addressed the circumstances surrounding the assassination attempt.
The articles discussed, on the basis of accounts attributed to various sources, the alleged conduct of E.V. in his capacity as head of the Ganja City Executive Authority, including reported conflicts with local officials and alleged mistreatment of individuals connected to the Karabakh conflict. The applicant's journalism thus engaged directly with matters of significant public interest in Azerbaijan at the time.
Article 10: freedom of expression
The Court examined the applicant's criminal conviction in the light of Article 10 of the Convention, which protects freedom of expression, including the freedom to receive and impart information and ideas.
The judgment records that the domestic courts convicted the applicant and imposed a lengthy suspended prison sentence in connection with the articles he had published. The Court assessed whether that interference with the applicant's right to freedom of expression was justified under Article 10 § 2, which permits restrictions that are prescribed by law, pursue a legitimate aim, and are necessary in a democratic society.
On the question of necessity, the Court found that the domestic courts had failed to take account of all the facts and relevant issues and had not carried out an appropriate analysis in the light of the Court's established criteria. As a consequence, the reasoning of the domestic courts was found not to be 'relevant and sufficient' so as to justify the applicant's conviction and the imposition of a lengthy suspended prison sentence.
The Court therefore concluded that the interference with the applicant's freedom of expression was not 'necessary in a democratic society', and found a violation of Article 10 of the Convention. This finding underscores the obligation on domestic courts to engage substantively with the criteria developed in the Court's case law when adjudicating on the criminal liability of journalists for published material, particularly where that material addresses matters of public concern.
Article 18 read in conjunction with Article 10: restriction for unauthorised purposes
The applicant also raised a complaint under Article 18 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 10. Article 18 provides that the restrictions permitted under the Convention to rights and freedoms shall not be applied for any purpose other than those for which they have been prescribed.
The Court examined whether the criminal proceedings against the applicant had been pursued for an ulterior purpose beyond those permitted by the Convention. Having considered the available evidence, the Court found that the existence of such an ulterior purpose had not been established on the facts of the case.
Accordingly, no violation of Article 18 read in conjunction with Article 10 was found. This aspect of the judgment illustrates the high threshold that applicants must meet in order to demonstrate that a restriction has been applied for an unauthorised purpose, distinct from the separate question of whether the restriction itself was justified under the relevant substantive article.
Article 8: private life, home, and correspondence
The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention, which protects the right to respect for private life, home, and correspondence, in relation to the seizure of his mobile telephones, laptop, and documents, as well as the inspection of the seized mobile telephones.
The Court found that those measures — the seizures and the inspection of the mobile telephones — were not 'in accordance with the law' as required by Article 8 § 2 of the Convention. The lawfulness requirement under the Convention demands not only a basis in domestic law but also that the relevant law meets standards of accessibility and foreseeability, and provides adequate safeguards against arbitrariness.
The Court's finding of a violation of Article 8 on this ground reflects the particular sensitivity of searches and seizures conducted in the context of journalistic activity, where the potential for interference with confidential sources and private communications is especially acute. The judgment does not elaborate further on the specific domestic legal deficiencies identified, but the conclusion that the measures were not in accordance with the law is unambiguous.
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: peaceful enjoyment of possessions
The applicant further complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, which guarantees the peaceful enjoyment of possessions and prohibits deprivation of or interference with property except under conditions prescribed by law and in the public interest.
The Court found that the seizure of the applicant's possessions was unlawful and that their retention was both unlawful and arbitrary. In particular, the continued retention of the applicant's mobile telephones — which had not been recognised as material evidence in the proceedings — was found to constitute a disproportionate interference with his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.
This finding reinforces the principle that the mere fact that property is seized in the context of criminal proceedings does not, of itself, render the retention of that property lawful or proportionate for the entire duration of those proceedings. Where items are not accorded the status of material evidence, their continued retention requires independent justification, and the absence of such justification will give rise to a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
Significance of the judgment
The judgment in Anar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan addresses several distinct but interconnected aspects of the Convention framework as they apply to journalists operating in contexts where their reporting touches on sensitive political and security matters.
The finding of a violation of Article 10 reinforces the Court's consistent position that domestic courts must conduct a rigorous and Convention-compliant analysis before convicting a journalist for published material, and that a failure to do so will render the resulting interference unjustifiable as a matter of European human rights law. The imposition of a lengthy suspended prison sentence was specifically identified as part of the unjustified interference.
The findings under Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 address the procedural and substantive safeguards that must accompany the seizure and retention of a journalist's equipment and documents. The requirement that such measures be in accordance with the law, and that the retention of items not recognised as material evidence be proportionate, provides important guidance on the limits of investigative powers when exercised against members of the press.
The Court's refusal to find a violation of Article 18 demonstrates that the existence of an ulterior purpose behind a restriction must be positively established and cannot be inferred solely from a finding that the substantive restriction was itself unjustified.
Conclusion
The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Anar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, delivered on 6 October 2026, identifies violations of Article 10 of the Convention, Article 8 of the Convention, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, while finding no violation of Article 18 read in conjunction with Article 10. The case arose from the criminal conviction of a journalist for articles published on his website discussing the possible reasons for an assassination attempt on a senior public official, and from the seizure and retention of his personal electronic devices and documents.
The judgment serves as a reminder of the obligations incumbent upon Council of Europe member states to ensure that any interference with the rights of journalists — whether through criminal prosecution, search and seizure, or the retention of property — is grounded in law, pursues a legitimate aim, and is demonstrably necessary and proportionate. Domestic courts bear a particular responsibility to engage with the established criteria of the European Court of Human Rights when adjudicating on matters that engage Convention rights.
The judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, and may be subject to editorial revision. Readers wishing to consult the full text of the judgment may do so via the official HUDOC database at the url recorded in the document metadata.
This article is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Sources consulted
- CASE OF ANAR MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN - European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe
Published by Synojus International
Back to English publications