CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 juin 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 23 June 2016   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 6477/08 Annagi HAJIBEYLI against Azerbaijan lodged on 12 January 2008 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Annagi Hajibeyli, is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1955 and lives in Baku. He is represented before the Court by Mr   I.   Aliyev, a lawyer practising in Azerbaijan. 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 made statements criticising the functioning of the Azerbaijani Bar Association (“the ABA”). He also signed a petition claiming the unlawfulness of 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 27 January 2006 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 asked him questions about his stand on the functioning of the ABA. In particular, they asked him whether he signed a petition against the holding of the Constituent Assembly of the ABA and why he applied for admission to an organisation that he had considered illegal in his statements. In reply to these questions, the applicant maintained his previous statements. On the same day, the Collegium of the ABA decided to dismiss the applicant’s request for admission to the ABA. On 21 February 2006 the applicant lodged a lawsuit with the Nasimi District Court, claiming the unlawfulness of the decision of 27 January 2006. In this connection, he argued that the Collegium of the ABA had failed to substantiate its decision and that he had not been admitted to the ABA on account of his statements about its functioning. On 15 March 2006 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 30 May 2006 the Court of Appeal quashed the Nasimi District Court’s decision of 15 March 2006 and remitted the case to the first ‑ instance court for a new examination. On 27 September 2006 the ABA lodged a cassation appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision of 30 May 2006. On 8 November 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 raised a number of requests and motions. In particular, he asked the court to request various documents from the ABA and to hear the members of the Collegium of the ABA, as well as 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 9 February 2007 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 16 March 2007 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 27 January 2006 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 about the functioning of the ABA.   On 6 June 2007 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the first-instance court’s judgment. The appellate court was silent as to the applicant’s particular complaints. On 13 November 2007 the Supreme Court upheld the Baku Court of Appeal’s judgment of 6 June 2007. On 8 August 2014 the applicant’s representative before the Court, Mr   I.   Aliyev, 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 Mr Aliyev’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 Mr I. Aliyev’s possession as a representative, were seized by the domestic authorities. By a fax dated 28 August 2014, Mr I. Aliyev 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 Mr I. Aliyev 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, Mr. I. Aliyev’s counsel. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the ABA’s decision of 27 January 2006 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, the applicant complains that his right to freedom of expression was breached, as he was not admitted to the ABA on account of his statements about the functioning of the ABA.   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 case files from Mr I. Aliyev’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?   4.     The parties are requested to submit a copy of the Nasimi District Court’s judgment of 9 February 2007 and the Supreme Court’s decision of 13   November 2007.