Communicated on 6 July 2015

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 81024/12 Khalid BAGIROV against Azerbaijan lodged on 14 November 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Khalid Bagirov , is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1976 and lives in Baku . H e is represented before the Court by Ms K. Levine , a lawyer practising in London .

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.

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

A. The applicant ’ s comments on a suspicious death in police custody

An individual (E.A.) who was arrested by the police , during the night of 12 to 13 January 2011, was found dead on the following day in police custody.

E.A. ’ s death received wide media coverage and the photograph of his body with traces of ill-treatment was published in the media.

On 25 January 2011 E.A. ’ s mother held a press conference at which she stated that her son had been murdered by the police.

On 28 February 2011 the applicant attended a meeting dedicated to the problems encountered by advocates. When he expressed his opinion about the problems of the advocacy in Azerbaijan, he made the following statement:

“Recently, when E.A. was murdered in police custody, we, with Elchin [ another advocate ] , wanted to organise a protest dressed in our robe s entitled “we cannot defend the dead” ( Biz ölüləri müdafiə edə bilmərik ). Unfortunately, we could not find other advocates than us for this protest ... This is also our topic. In fact, [they] should keep alive those arrested so that we c an defend them. Although the latter s need an advocate from the beginning of their arrest, they are provided with a stick.”

On 1 March 2011 the article entitled “The arrested persons do not need an advocate, but a stick” (“ Tutulanlara vəkil yox , zopa lazımdır ” ) was published in the Bizim Yol newspaper. The article addressed the applicant ’ s comments on E.A. ’ s murder in police custody and his wish to organise a protest against the police brutality.

On 7 March 2011 E.A. ’ s mother instructed the applicant to defend her rights in the proceedings relating to E.A. ’ s death.

B. Criminal complaint lodged against the applicant

On 18 March 2011 the Head of the Baku City Chief Police Department (R.A.) lodged a criminal complaint with the Yasamal District Court against the applicant for defamation under Article 147 of the Criminal Court.

On 15 April 2011 the Yasamal District Court refused to institute criminal proceedings for defamation, finding that the applicant had not made any defamatory comment about R.A. and that the latter could not be considered as a victim.

C . Disciplinary proceedings instituted against the applicant

On 27 April 2011 R.A. sent a letter to the ABA asking for the institution of disciplinary proceedings against the applicant. He alleged that the applicant had made defamatory statements accusing the police of E.A. ’ s murder, the practice of torture and ill-treatment and other unlawful activities without any evidence.

On 16 June 2011 the Disciplinary Commission of the ABA issued an opinion in which it decided to refer the complaint against the applicant to the Collegium of the ABA.

On 24 August 2011 the Collegium of the ABA held a meeting at which it examined the complaint and decided to suspend the applicant ’ s advocacy activity ( vəkillik fəaliyyəti ) for a period of one year. It held that the applicant had failed to comply with Articles 14, 16 and 17 of the Law on Advocates and Advocacy. In particular, the applicant had disclosed confidential information concerning the ongoing criminal investigation, instead of submitting it to the investigating authorities. Moreover, he had made defamatory comments about the activities of the police without relying on any evidence and, consequently, had caused damage to the reputation of the police. It was further pointed out in the decision that although the applicant had been duly informed about the meeting, he had failed to attend it.

On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a complaint with the Nasimi District Court against the ABA ’ s decision of 24 August 2011. He alleged that the decision in question had amounted to an interference with his right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention. He further submitted that he had not disclosed confidential information relating to the advocacy, as on 25 January 2011 at a press conference E.A. ’ s mother had made a statement about E.A. ’ s murder by the police. He also alleged that the Collegium of the ABA was not entitled to suspend his advocacy activity on 24 August 2011 since the mandate of its members expired in November 2009.

On 3 November 2011 the Nasimi District Court dismissed the applicant ’ s claim, finding that the ABA ’ s decision of 24 August 2011 was lawful and justified. The court held that, instead of protecting confidential information obtained within the framework of the criminal investigation and submitting it to the relevant investigating authorities, the applicant had disclosed this information. The court further held that the applicant had made defamatory statements about the police at the meeting of 28 February 2011. The court ’ s judgment was silent as to the applicant ’ s complaint concerning the violation of his right to freedom of expression.

The applicant appealed against this judgment complaining that the suspension of his advocacy activity had amounted to a violation of his rights under Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention. He further noted that although on 24 August 2011 he had been present in the building of the ABA, the Collegium of the ABA held its meeting in his absence and that he had not been authorised to defend himself. He complained that his right to a public hearing had been breached in the proceedings before the Nasimi District Court. In this connection, he pointed out that 5-10 minutes after the beginning of the hearing his two lawyers and a representative of the OSCE had entered the courtroom in order to attend the hearing, but they had been excluded from the courtroom by the judge. The applicant also asked the appellate court to hear E.A. ’ s mother.

On 11 January 2012 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal. The appellate court held that the ABA ’ s decision of 24 August 2011 was lawful and justified. The court further held that although E.A. ’ s mother had made a similar statement to the media before the applicant, the latter as an advocate should keep this information as confidential. However, he had disclosed confidential information obtained within the framework of his professional activity.

On 11 May 2012 the Supreme Court upheld the Baku Court of Appeal ’ s judgment of 11 January 2012.

On 11 June 2012 the applicant was provided with a copy of the Supreme Court ’ s decision of 11 May 2012.

COMPLAINTS

T he applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the suspension of his advocacy activity for a period of one year 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 because although it provided a range of sanctions it did not specify in which circumstances these sanctions should be applied. He further alleges that the Collegium of the ABA was not entitled to suspend his advocacy activity on 24 August 2011 since the mandate of its members expired in November 2009.

T he applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention that the suspension of his advocacy activity for a period of one year constituted an infringement of his right to freedom of expression.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been an interference with the ap plicant ’ s freedom of expression , in particular his right to impart information, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the interference with the applicant ’ s right to freedom of expression because of his statement of 28 February 2011 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 the suspension of his advocacy activity for a period of one year ? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?

3. The parties are requested to submit copies of all documents relating to the disciplinary and court proceedings concerning the suspension of the applicant ’ s advocacy activity .