Published on 17 October 2022

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 62/20 Yalchin IMANOV against Azerbaijan lodged on 10 December 2019 communicated on 29 September 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the disbarment of the applicant, who was a lawyer specialised in the field of protection of human rights, on account of the statements that he made to the press on the alleged ill-treatment of one of his clients in prison.

At the request of the Presidium of the Azerbaijani Bar Association, the domestic courts, by a final decision of the Supreme Court dated 1 October 2019, ordered the applicant’s disbarment. The domestic courts found that the applicant had breached the provisions of the Law on Advocates and Advocacy Activity and the Statute on the rules of conduct for lawyers, by spreading in the media unverified information about the alleged ill-treatment of his client in prison - without waiting for the examination of the complaint that he had lodged in this connection with the relevant domestic authorities – which had led to an unauthorised gathering of his client’s relatives in front of the Penitentiary Service building.

Relying on various Articles of the Convention, the applicant argues that his disbarment on account of the statements that he made to the press on his client’s ill-treatment in prison violated his Convention rights.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. 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?

2. Has there been an interference with the applicant’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 applicant’s disbarment on account of the statements that he made to the press on the alleged ill-treatment of one of his clients in prison justified under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention?

4. 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?