The Supreme Court of the Republic of Azerbaijan has adopted a new Plenum decision "On the protection of personality rights," introducing significant changes to judicial practice regarding the protection of private and family life.
According to the Operative Information Center-OMM, the court stated that the new decision clarifies the legal boundaries between defamation and the unauthorized disclosure of truthful personal information. Previously, legal claims were primarily handled through the lens of protecting honor and dignity, which often failed if the disseminated information was proven true. However, the court now emphasizes that spreading accurate information about an individual without their consent is also a legal violation.
This shift reinforces the constitutionally protected right to privacy in Azerbaijan. Under the new guidelines, any individual whose privacy is breached can demand the correction or deletion of collected data and seek compensation for moral damages. The Supreme Court distinguished this right from the protection of honor and dignity, noting that the right to privacy serves to ensure an individual feels comfortable and secure within society by respecting their personal and family life.
The decision provides a broad interpretation of what constitutes private life, extending protection to an individual's home, vehicle, office, personal belongings, and even their pets and plants. Prohibited actions include the unauthorized collection, storage, or dissemination of medical records, financial status, personal correspondence, family relations, divorce reasons, and information regarding children's health or adoption. The court noted that even after a person's death, these rights can be defended by their heirs.
Media entities will face direct liability for privacy violations, particularly when such information is shared through television, radio, or social media platforms. The ruling specifies that if a violation occurs during a live broadcast, the media outlet may be held responsible unless it has clearly warned participants beforehand about the legal consequences of disclosing private information. Furthermore, institutions responsible for data storage—including clinics, banks, mobile operators, and state agencies—will be held liable if they facilitate unauthorized access to personal data.
The Plenum decision also outlines specific exceptions. Civil liability does not arise if the individual has given explicit or implied consent (such as "liking" a social media post containing the information) or if the information was already made public by the individual. Additionally, law enforcement agencies may share personal data, such as photos or physical descriptions, when searching for suspects. In cases involving public figures, the court ruled that while their financial assets and official activities are subject to public scrutiny, their irrelevant personal details, such as a child's health condition, remain protected from disclosure.
