CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 novembre 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 } .s20FC8552 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11.5pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }   Communicated on 29 November 2016   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 44756/08 Khaladdin SOLTANOV against Azerbaijan lodged on 26 August 2008 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Khaladdin Soltanov, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1968 and lives in Baku. He is represented before the Court by Mr N. Abbasov, a lawyer practising in Azerbaijan. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant worked as a fitter at BOS Shelf LLC (“the company”), a private company. On 10 July 2006 the company dismissed the applicant on the grounds that for more than six months he had been unable to perform his functions as an employee because of a disability. The applicant brought a civil action against the company, seeking his reinstatement in the job and payment of salary from the date of his dismissal until the date of delivery of the final judgment. On 27 October 2006 the Garadag District Court delivered a judgment, dismissing the applicant’s claims. Following an appeal by the applicant, on 21 May 2007 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. He was represented by his lawyer, Mr   N.   Abbasov, at the hearing of 21 September 2007 before the Supreme Court. By its decision of 21 September 2007 the Supreme Court granted the applicant’s cassation appeal, quashing the appellate court’s judgment and remitting the case to the Baku Court of Appeal for a fresh examination. On 18 December 2007 the Baku Court of Appeal delivered a new judgment on the merits, granting the applicant’s appeal and quashing the first-instance court’s judgment. The court held that the applicant’s dismissal had been unlawful and ordered his reinstatement in his previous job. The court also granted the applicant compensation for loss of salary for the period following the unlawful dismissal. On an unspecified date the company lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. According to the applicant, at the hearing of 12 March 2008 the Supreme Court ordered his lawyer, Mr N. Abbasov, to leave the courtroom on the grounds that he had not submitted a new power of attorney in relation to representing the applicant at that hearing, but had relied on the power of attorney in the case file submitted during the cassation appeal hearing of 21 September 2007. The court did not hear the applicant for not being represented by a lawyer. By its decision of 12   March   2008 the Supreme Court quashed the appellate court’s judgment of 18   December 2007. It held that the applicant had attended the cassation appeal hearing without his lawyer, and that his dismissal had been lawful.   COMPLAINT   The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the Supreme Court infringed his right to adversarial proceedings by not allowing his lawyer to attend the hearing of 12 March 2008 before the Supreme Court and represent him.   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 principle of adversarial proceedings respected with regard to the absence of the applicant’s lawyer and the applicant’s effective participation at the cassation appeal hearing of 12 March 2008? Did the applicant’s lawyer attend the Supreme Court hearing of 12 March 2008? Were there any lawful grounds for prohibiting the applicant’s lawyer from participating in the cassation appeal hearing of 12 March 2008?   2.     The parties are requested to submit copies of all documents relating to the civil proceedings, including the transcript of the Supreme Court hearing of 12 March 2008, as well as a copy of the power of attorney of the applicant’s lawyer.