Communicated on 24 June 2016

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 28198/15 Khalid BAGIROV against Azerbaijan lodged on 15 October 2015

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Khalid Bagirov , is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1976 and lives in Baku. He is represented before the Court by Ms R. Remezaite , Ms K. Levine and Ms J. Evans, lawyers practising in London.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant was an advocate and a member of the Azerbaijani Bar Association (“the ABA”). He was affiliated to Law Office no. 6 in Baku.

In August and September 2014 the applicant represented I.M. in criminal proceedings before the Shaki Court of Appeal.

In November 2014 disciplinary proceedings were instituted against the applicant by the ABA on the basis of a letter dated 25 September 2014 from a judge of the Shaki Court of Appeal. In his letter the judge informed the ABA that the applicant had breached the ethical rules of conduct for advocates at the court hearings held in September 2014 before the Shaki Court of Appeal within the criminal proceedings against I .M. In particular, the judge noted that at one of the court hearings held in September 2014 the applicant made the following remark about the judicial system: “Like State, like court ... If there were justice in Azerbaijan, Judge R.H. would not deliver unfair and partial judgments, nor would an individual like him be a judge” (“ Belə dövlətin belə də məhkəməsi olacaq ... Azərbaycanda ədalət olsaydı , hakim R.H. ədalətsiz və qərəzli hökm çıxarmaz , nə də onun kimisi hakim işləməzdi ”).

On an unspecified date the applicant submitted a written explanation to the Collegium of the ABA within the framework of the disciplinary proceedings. He stated that he did not remember having said the remark in question, but considered that the expression “like State, like court” is the assessment made by the defence about the judicial system.

On 10 December 2014 the Collegium of the ABA held that the applicant had breached the ethical rules of conduct for advocates because of the remark that he had made at the court hearing about the judicial system. On the same day the Collegium of the ABA decided to refer the applicant ’ s case to a court with a view to his disbarment. It also decided to suspend his activity as an advocate ( vəkillik fəaliyyəti ) pending a decision by the court.

On 18 December 2014 the Collegium of the ABA lodged a request with the Nizami District Court asking for the applicant ’ s disbarment.

It appears from the documents in the case file that, following the institution of court proceedings, the applicant raised a motion before the Nizami District Court asking for suspension of the court proceeding on account of alleged lack of legal capacity of the Collegium of the ABA to institute court proceedings for his disbarment. He further requested the Nizami District Court to transfer his case to an administrative court. At the same time, he lodged a separate complaint against the ABA with the administrative courts.

Following a series of procedural decisions, the domestic courts dismissed the applicant ’ s above-mentioned motion, request and separate complaint, finding that the Collegium of the ABA had the legal capacity to institute court proceedings for his disbarment and that the latter proceedings should not be examined by the administrative courts.

On 10 July 2015 the Nizami District Court delivered its judgment on the merits and ordered the applicant ’ s disbarment. The court held that the applicant had failed to comply with ethical rules of conduct for advocates as he had made disrespectful statements about the judges, the judicial system and, in particular, the State organs and the statehood of the country at the court hearings before the Shaki Court of Appeal. The court further held that the interference with the applicant ’ s right under Article 10 of the Convention was justified on the basis of Article 22 of the Law on Advocates and Advocacy which provides that, if there were grounds for disbarment of an advocate, the Collegium of the ABA may, on the basis of an opinion of the Disciplinary Commission of the ABA, decide to refer the case to a court by suspending the advocacy activity of the advocate in question until the court ’ s decision.

On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against the judgment. In particular, he claimed that his disbarment had constituted an unjustified interference with his rights protected under Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention. Relying on Articles 6 and 18 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, he also claimed that his right to a fair trial had been breached and that he had been disbarred because of his active involvement in the defence of human rights.

On 11 September 2015 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the Nizami District Court ’ s judgment of 10 July 2015.

On 26 October 2015 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal, reiterating his previous complaints.

On 12 January 2016 the Supreme Court upheld the Baku Court of Appeal ’ s judgment of 11 September 2016.

COMPLAINTS

T he applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that his disbarment amounted to an interference with his private and professional life. In particular, he complains that the Law on Advocates and Advocacy did not comply with the requirements of the quality of law.

He complains under Article 10 of the Convention that his disbarment amounted to an infringement of his right to freedom of expression and was disproportionate.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s freedom of expression, in particular his right to impart information and ideas, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant ’ s disbarment on account of the remark that he had made at a hearing before the Shaki Court of Appeal justified under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention?

2. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s right to respect for his private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, on account of his disbarment? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?

3. Were the restrictions imposed by the State in the present case, purportedly pursuant to Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than those envisaged by those provisions, contrary to Article 18 of the Convention?