Requested by: Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Monitoring Committee, Chair

Recommended Measures:
The Law should not be implemented as it stands. If the Law is nevertheless not repealed in its entirety, the Venice Commission urgently calls on the authorities of Azerbaijan to: • repeal the excessive restrictions on the establishment of media entities in Article 26 of the Law, including as regards foreign ownership and foreign funding, in order to foster media pluralism; • either abolish the Media Register or repeal the excessively restrictive conditions for journalists and media entities in order to be included in the Media Register, in particular the conditions that relate to the provision of detailed personal information, requirements as regards education, labour contract, absence of a criminal record, work experience of journalists and continuous operation of media entities, and to ensure that a broad range of entities involved with informing the public can carry out their operations; • repeal the accreditation scheme for journalists; • amend Article 14 of the Law to ensure that the restrictions on content are compatible with the case-law of the Court on Article 10 ECHR; • amend Article 15, paragraph 3 of the Law by complementing the right of journalists not to disclose their sources of information under Article 15, paragraph 2, with clear provisions indicating that a court can only order disclosure if all reasonable alternative measures have been exhausted and the legitimate interest in disclosure is of a sufficiently vital and serious nature, responding to a pressing social need, which outweighs the public interest in non-disclosure; • stipulate that platform broadcasters, on-demand service providers and platform operators are not subject to the licensing regime but only require to be registered; • clarify that the application requirement for the publication and dissemination of print and online media products is no more than a requirement to notify the authorities; • amend the provisions on suspension and termination of the licences of audiovisual media and on the suspension and termination of print and on-line media entities, to ensure that such sanctions are proportionate (i.e. limited to situations that would justify such an exceptional measure), progressively applied by an independent regulatory authority and provide for a transparent and fair procedure in which the license holder is heard and can have the decision on suspension / termination reviewed. 53. In addition, the Venice Commission finds that: • the definition of a journalist in Article 1 of the Law would need to be broadened and defined in line with the “public watchdog role” of journalists; • references in Article 3 of the Law to the extraterritorial scope of application of the Law would need to be deleted; • paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the Law would need to be amended, to provide for clear and accessible legal grounds for restricting the exercise of freedom of expression during a state of emergency, martial law, during special anti-terror operations or special operations against religious extremism, with sufficient procedural safeguards; • references to the reciprocity of restrictions in Article 11 paragraph 4 of the Law would need to be deleted; • the general requirement upon journalists and media entities under Article 15, paragraph 1, subs 3 and 4, of the Law, to seek prior permission to publish information on preliminary investigations or prosecutions would need to be deleted or at the very least it should be clarified in the Law which specific, narrowly defined set of documents this refers to (whereby a justifiable and overriding interest for requiring prior permission for publication can be identified); • the categorical prohibition on the use of secret audio and video recordings and photographs without the consent of the person concerned or a court order would need to be replaced by a provision that allows for such use in cases in which there is a clear public interest in the publication of such material, provided the rights of third parties are protected; • the existing institutional model of the Media Council would need to be revised, in line with European standards, to ensure it has the capacity to act as an independent regulatory authority.

Measures taken: No amendments were made to the Law following the Opinion.