Communicated on 24 June 2016

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 10414/08 Intigam ALIYEV against Azerbaijan lodged on 12 January 2008

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Intigam Aliyev , is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1962 and lives in Sumgayit .

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

At the time of the events the applicant worked as a lawyer on the basis of a special licence (“the licence”) for paid legal services delivered by the Ministry of Justice. He regularly made statements and published articles about the organisation of the advocacy activity in the country, criticising the functioning of the Azerbaijani Bar Association (“the ABA”). He was also involved in the court proceedings with the ABA concerning the holding of the Constituent Assembly of the ABA.

On 14 June 2005 new amendments to the transitional provisions of the Law on Advocates and Advocacy Activity were adopted. The amendments provided that all the lawyers practising on the basis of a licence were admitted to the ABA by its Collegium, without participating in an examination.

On an unspecified date the applicant applied for admission to the ABA relying on the amendments of 14 June 2005.

On 19 November 2005 the Collegium of the ABA held a meeting at which it examined the applicant ’ s request. It appears from the transcript of the meeting that the members of the Collegium openly criticised the applicant for his public statements and articles about the state of the advocacy activity in the country and the functioning of the ABA. In particular, they asked him whether in case of his admission to the ABA he would discontinue the court proceedings that he had previously instituted against the ABA. They further asked the applicant why he wanted to become a member of an organisation that he had regularly criticised in the media. In reply to these questions, the applicant reiterated his previous statements about the functioning of the ABA. He further stated that there was no law prohibiting the institution of court proceedings against the ABA and that he would not withdraw his complaint.

On the same day, the Collegium of the ABA decided to dismiss the applicant ’ s request for admission to the ABA.

On 2 December 2005 the applicant lodged a lawsuit with the Nasimi District Court, claiming the unlawfulness of the decision of 19 November 2015.

On 19 December 2005 the Nasimi District Court refused to admit the lawsuit, finding that the decision of the Collegium of the ABA was not subject to an appeal before the courts.

On 23 February 2006 the Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court ’ s decision.

On 24 May 2006 the Supreme Court quashed the Court of Appeal ’ s decision of 23 February 2006 and remitted the case to the appellate court for a new examination. The Supreme Court found that the lower courts ’ refusal to admit the applicant ’ s lawsuit had violated his right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention.

On 18 July 2006 the Court of Appeal delivered a new decision and granted the applicant ’ s appeal.

On 27 September 2006 the ABA lodged a cassation appeal against the Court of Appeal ’ s decision of 18 July 2006.

On 7 December 2006 the Supreme Court dismissed the ABA ’ s cassation appeal.

At the beginning of 2007 the Nasimi District Court commenced the examination of the applicant ’ s lawsuit on the merits. It appears from the documents in the case file that in the course of the proceedings before the first-instance court the applicant and the ABA raised a number of motions and requests. In particular, the applicant asked the court to request various documents from the ABA and to refer his complaint to the Constitution Court for interpretation of the transitional provisions of the Law on Advocates and Advocacy Activity. He further objected to the sitting judge and lodged a request for the institution of disciplinary proceedings against him.

Following a series of procedural decisions, the domestic courts dismissed the applicant ’ s requests and motions.

On 11 August 2009 the Nasimi District Court delivered its judgment on the merits. The court found that, as the admission to the ABA was a matter which fell within the competence of the Collegium of the ABA and that there was no breach of law in the examination of the applicant ’ s request by the Collegium of the ABA, the applicant ’ s complaint should be dismissed.

On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against this judgment claiming the violation of his rights protected under Articles 6, 10, 11 and 14 of the Convention. In particular, he claimed that the decision of 19

November 2005 dismissing his application for admission to the ABA was unlawful, as it was contrary to the transitional provisions of the Law on Advocates and Advocacy Activity. He further complained that he had not been admitted to the ABA because of his statements and articles about the state of the advocacy activity in the country.

On 2 November 2009 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the first-instance court ’ s judgment was lawful. The appellate court was silent as to the applicant ’ s particular complaints.

On 18 June 2010 the Supreme Court upheld the Baku Court of Appeal ’ s judgment of 2 November 2009.

On 8 August 2014 the applicant was arrested on charges of tax evasion, abuse of power and illegal entrepreneurship. On 8 and 9 August 2014 the prosecuting authorities conducted a search of the applicant ’ s home and office. During the search, a large number of documents , including all the case files relating to the applications before the Court that were in his possession, were seized by the domestic authorities.

By a fax dated 28 August 2014 , the applicant informed the Court of the seizure of the case files claiming a breach of Article 34 of the Convention in respect of all the applications affected. In his letters sent to the Court in September 2014 the applicant reiterated the complaint concerning the seizure of the case files.

On 25 October 2014 a part of the seized documents was returned to Javad Javadov , the applicant ’ s counsel.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the ABA ’ s decision of 19 November 2005 dismissing his application for admission to the ABA was unlawful, as it was contrary to the transitional provisions of the Law on Advocates and Advocacy Activity. In this connection, he complains that the domestic courts failed to give a reasoned decision, as they contented themselves with holding that the matter of the admission to the ABA fell within the competence of the Collegium of the ABA, without examining his arguments relating to the unlawfulness of the decision in question.

Relying on Article 10 of the Convention, t he applicant complains that his right to freedom of expression was breached, as he was not admitted to the ABA on account of his statements and articles about the state of advocacy activity in Azerbaijan.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant ’ s right to a reasoned decision respected?

2. 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? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2?

3 . In view of the seizure of the files relating to the present application from the applicant ’ s home and office on 8 and 9 August 2014, has there been any hindrance by the State in the present case with the effective exercise of the applicant ’ s right of application, ensured by Article 34 of the Convention?