ECHR Turkey Azerbaijan Press Freedom Ruling: Court Finds Violations

• The European Court of Human Rights ruled that Turkey and Azerbaijan violated freedom of expression in two separate cases involving journalists.
• Turkish journalist Müyesser Uğur was detained for five months after reporting on a military commander, a detention the ECHR found excessive.
• Azerbaijani editor Anar Mammadov received a suspended five-year, three-month sentence for covering a shooting, which the ECHR found was not incitement to violence.
• The ECHR emphasized that states must demonstrate that depriving a journalist of liberty is both necessary and proportionate, even when national security interests are invoked.
• The rulings highlighted domestic courts' failures to adequately balance state interests with the public value of journalistic reporting.

the state may invoke a legitimate national security interest, but it must show why depriving a journalist of her liberty was necessary and proportionate.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) recently delivered a significant judgment, finding that both Turkey and Azerbaijan had violated the fundamental right to freedom of expression. The rulings concerned the cases of a Turkish journalist detained for reporting on military operations and an Azerbaijani editor who received a suspended prison sentence for covering a shooting incident. In both instances, the ECHR determined that the state responses were unjustified infringements on journalistic liberty.

The court specifically upheld challenges brought by Müyesser Uğur against her detention in Turkey and by Anar Mammadov against his conviction and the seizure of his property in Azerbaijan. These decisions underscore the ECHR's commitment to safeguarding media freedom against overreaching state powers, particularly in contexts where critical journalism faces significant pressure.

Müyesser Uğur, a journalist for odatv.com, found herself at the center of a legal battle after investigating Turkey's military involvement in Libya. Her reporting focused on the deployment of forces supporting Libya’s internationally recognized government against commander Khalifa Haftar, an alliance that included a Mediterranean maritime agreement. Following the interception of her communications with a military source, Uğur was arrested in June 2020 and subsequently held for five months.

Of the six articles cited against her, five contained no confidential information or state secrets. The sixth article, however, identified the commander in Libya. While the ECHR acknowledged that disclosing the commander's identity could potentially endanger him and seriously damage national security, it also recognized the article's contribution to public debate. The court emphasized that "The task of imparting information and exercising public scrutiny entrusted to the media extends also to the activities of the armed forces."

Despite noting that Uğur should have been aware of the information's sensitivity, the ECHR found no evidence that she obtained it unlawfully or pressured her source. Crucially, the court observed that Turkish judges failed to consider whether officials had already compromised secrecy by revealing the commander's rank. They also did not adequately balance national security concerns against the public value of the reporting, leading the ECHR to conclude that Uğur's five-month detention was excessive. The court did not issue a separate decision on her liberty complaint.

Legal experts echoed this sentiment, with Lorna Woods, a professor of internet law, deeming the detention disproportionate and asserting that finding fault with reporting does not automatically justify the state's response. Sibel Güzeldağ, a lawyer and doctoral candidate, further highlighted that Turkey’s Constitutional Court had adopted its detention findings without an independent assessment of the press freedom complaint, a point also raised by dissenting judges within that court who questioned the necessity and clear demonstration of harm. Uğur’s lawyer, Erhan Tokatlı, indicated she would not comment pending a full assessment.

In Azerbaijan, Anar Mammadov, the editor of criminal.az, faced legal repercussions for his coverage of a 2018 shooting incident involving a top official in Ganja. Mammadov's reporting involved reproducing grievances from local residents, originally published by another outlet, regarding the event. Azerbaijani courts interpreted his journalistic work as an incitement to seize power by force, leading to a suspended sentence of five years and three months.

However, the ECHR found no evidence of incitement to violence in Mammadov's articles. Furthermore, the court could find no explanation linking his reporting to any subsequent unrest. Beyond the conviction, the ECHR also determined that the seizure of Mammadov's phones, laptop, and documents, as well as the continued retention of these devices, was unlawful. The court concluded that any hidden motive behind punishing his journalism remained unproven. Elchin Sadigov, Mammadov's barrister, criticized the domestic courts' handling of the case, describing it as regressive.

These ECHR rulings underscore a critical principle: while states may invoke legitimate national security interests, their responses to journalistic activities must be both necessary and proportionate. The court’s decisions serve as a reminder that the media plays a vital role in public scrutiny, even when reporting on sensitive matters like military operations or public grievances.

The judgments highlight a pattern where domestic courts in both Turkey and Azerbaijan failed to adequately balance state interests with the fundamental right to freedom of expression, leading to excessive or unjustified penalties against journalists. As one expert, Sibel Güzeldağ, articulated, the core message is that "the state may invoke a legitimate national security interest, but it must show why depriving a journalist of her liberty was necessary and proportionate." These cases reinforce the ECHR's role in safeguarding press freedom against overreaching state powers, particularly in contexts where critical journalism faces significant pressure.

Source: Original reporting via Associated Press