Attorneys are not admitted to the Bar Association because of their critical statements about the status of lawyers. Violation of freedom of expression.

JUDGMENT 

Hajibeyli and Aliyev v. Azerbaijan 19.04.2018 (no. 6477/08 and 10414/08)

see here

SUMMARY

Freedom of expression of lawyer. Rejection of a request for membership of a Bar Association due to views they had expressed and criticized the status of the legal profession in their own country. Violation of Article 10 (Freedom of Expression) and Article 34 (Individual Petition) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

PROVISIONS 

Article 10

Article  34

PRINCIPAL FACTS 

The applicants, Annagi Bahaduroglu Hajibeyli and Intigam Kamiloglu Aliyev, are Azerbaijani nationals who were born in 1955 and 1962 and live in Baku and Absheron (Azerbaijan) respectively.

They are well-known civil society activists and human rights lawyers. The case concerned their allegation that they had not been admitted to the Azerbaijani Bar Association because they had publicly criticised the state of the legal profession in their country. In 2005 the applicants applied for admission to the Bar under a new law which aimed at reforming the legal profession. At the time they had been practising as lawyers for a number of years on the basis of a special permit issued by the Ministry of Justice. As such, they were allowed under transitional provisions of the new law to be admitted to the Bar without passing a qualification examination, subject to their complying with the requirements to practise as legal counsel. However, the Presidium of the Bar dismissed their applications. They brought proceedings before the domestic courts in the following years, without success.

Relying in particular on Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants alleged that they had been refused admission to the Bar on account of the views they had expressed.

In support of their claim, they had submitted extracts from meetings at which the Bar had examined their applications and questioned them. Mr Aliyev, the second applicant and also the legal representative in this case, complained on his own behalf and on behalf of Mr Hajibeyli, the first applicant, that in 2014 the authorities had seized the entire case file on their applications from his office only to return them two and half months later, in breach of Article 34 (right of individual petition) of the European Convention.

THE DECISION OF THE COURT 

Violation of Article 10

Violation of Article 34

Just satisfaction: 7,000 euros (EUR) each to Mr Hajibeyli and Mr Aliyev for non-pecuniary damage, and EUR 2,500 to Mr Hajibeyli for costs and expenses(echrcaselaw.com editing). 


ECHRCaseLaw

Χρησιμοποιούμε cookies για να σας προσφέρουμε καλύτερη εμπειρία στο διαδίκτυο. Συμφωνώντας, αποδέχεστε τη χρήση των cookies σύμφωνα με την Πολιτική Cookies.

Privacy Settings saved!
Ρυθμίσεις Απορρήτου

Όταν επισκέπτεστε μία ιστοσελίδα, μπορεί να λάβει κάποιες βασικές πληροφορίες από τον browser σας, κατά βάση υπό τη μορφή cookies. Εδώ μπορείτε να ρυθμίσετε τη συγκατάθεσή σας σε όλα αυτά.

These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources, so we can measure and improve the performance of our site.

We track anonymized user information to improve our website.
  • _ga
  • _gid
  • _gat

Decline all Services
Accept all Services