CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 25 juin 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF2E0A612 { margin-top:48pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s30F6C862 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:7.1pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-7.1pt; text-align:center } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s795B4A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sD9FE5EFA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:11pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s304E8EBB { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s6CCEAD68 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s1EA2E817 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDAD2B73A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sBEAFF702 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:21.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .sF8EF8A76 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s5E93DAC4 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s10A5DB21 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:41.65pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .sB2C455F7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.9pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sA50A48B9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s11EE8375 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4DE88426 { width:180.29pt; display:inline-block } .s40964402 { width:201.63pt; display:inline-block }   FIFTH SECTION CASE OF BAGIROV v. AZERBAIJAN ( Applications nos. 81024/12 and 28198/15 )     JUDGMENT   Art 10 and Art 8 • Freedom of expression • Respect for private life • Lawyer suspended for public criticism of police brutality and later disbarred for disrespectful remarks about a judge made in courtroom while representing Ilgar Mammadov • Suspension not “prescribed by law” • Domestic courts endorsed suspension without addressing the applicant’s argument regarding the absence of breach of lawyer confidentiality • Disproportionate character and chilling effect of disbarment not supported by relevant and sufficient reasons • Principle of fairness militated in favour of a free and forceful exchange of arguments between parties in the courtroom • Criticism of the functioning of the judicial system in Ilgar Mammadov’s trial made after the European Court’s finding of several violations of the Convention in the case Art 46 • Execution of judgment • Committee of Ministers to supervise the adoption of measures aimed at restoring the applicant’s professional activities   STRASBOURG   25 June 2020   FINAL   25/09/2020   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Bagirov v. Azerbaijan, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Síofra O’Leary, President,   Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer,   Yonko Grozev,   Mārtiņš Mits,   Lәtif Hüseynov,   Lado Chanturia,   Angelika Nußberger, judges, and Victor Soloveytchik, Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 2 June 2020, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in two applications (nos.   81024/12 and 28198/15) against the Republic of Azerbaijan lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by an Azerbaijani national, Mr Khalid Zakir oglu Bagirov ( Xalid Zakir oğlu Bağırov  “the applicant”), on 14 November 2012 and 15 October 2015 respectively. 2.     The applicant was represented by Mr I. Aliyev, a lawyer based in Azerbaijan, and Ms R. Remezaite, Ms K. Levine and Mr P. Leach, lawyers practising in London, in application no. 81024/12. The applicant was represented by Ms R. Remezaite, Ms K. Levine and Ms J. Evans, lawyers practising in London, in application no. 28198/15. The Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr   Ç.   Əsgərov. 3.     The applicant alleged, in particular, that his rights to freedom of expression and to respect for private life had been breached because the Azerbaijani Bar Association ( Azərbaycan Respublikası Vəkillər Kollegiyası – hereinafter “the ABA”) had first suspended him from the practice of law for a period of one year and had subsequently disbarred him on account of statements he had made about police brutality and the functioning of the judicial system in the country. He also complained in respect of application no. 28198/15 that his Convention rights had been restricted for purposes other than those prescribed in the Convention. 4.     On 6 July 2015 and 24 June 2016 respectively the Government were given notice of the complaints concerning the alleged violation of the applicant’s rights to respect for private life (Article 8 of the Convention) and to freedom of expression (Article 10 of the Convention) in respect of both applications, and the complaint under Article 18 of the Convention in conjunction with Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention in respect of application no. 28198/15; the remainder of the applications was declared inadmissible, pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court. It was also decided to grant application no. 28198/15 priority treatment under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. In addition, third-party comments were received from the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, who exercised his right to intervene in the proceedings and submitted written comments in respect of application no. 28198/15 (Article 36 § 3 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 2 of the Rules of Court). Third-party observations were also received from the International Commission of Jurists, following the granting of leave to intervene as a third party in the written procedure in respect of both applications (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 §   3 of the Rules of Court). THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Baku. 6.     The applicant was a lawyer ( vəkil ) and a member of the ABA at the time of the events described below. He was affiliated to Law Office No. 6 in Baku. The applicant specialised in protection of human rights and has represented applicants in more than 100 cases before the Court. The applicant’s suspension from the practice of law (application no. 81024/12) 1.     The applicant’s comments on a suspicious death in police custody 7.     An individual (E.A.) who was arrested during the night of 12 ‑ 13   January 2011 was found dead the following day in police custody. 8.     E.A.’s death received wide media coverage; a photograph of his body with traces of ill-treatment was published in the media. 9.     On 25 January 2011 E.A.’s mother (R.R.) held a press conference, at which she stated that her son had been murdered by the police. She also complained that the law-enforcement authorities had failed to conduct an investigation into the death of her son in police custody. 10.     On 28 February 2011 the applicant attended a meeting dedicated to problems encountered by lawyers. When he expressed his opinion about the problems of the legal profession in Azerbaijan, he made the following statement: “Recently, when E.A. was murdered in police custody, Elchin [another lawyer] and I wanted to organise a protest wearing our robes entitled “We cannot defend the dead” ( Biz ölüləri müdafiə edə bilmərik ). Unfortunately, we could not find any other lawyers to join us for this protest ... This is also our topic. In fact, [they] should keep alive those arrested so that we can defend them. Although the latter need a lawyer as soon as they are arrested, they are provided with a stick.” 11.     On 1 March 2011 an article entitled “those arrested do not need a lawyer, 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 police brutality. 12.     On 7 March 2011 R.R. instructed the applicant to defend her rights in the proceedings relating to E.A.’s death: a contract was signed between them. On the same date mandate ( order ) no. 013912 confirming that R.R. was represented by the applicant was issued. 13.     It appears from the documents in the case file that by a letter dated 7   November 2013 the Nizami District Prosecutor informed the applicant that a criminal investigation was being conducted under Article 315.2 (Resistance to or violence against a public official which poses a danger to his life and health) of the Criminal Code in connection with E.A.’s actions during his arrest on 13 January 2011, and that the investigation had been suspended under Article 53.1.1 (the person to be charged is unknown) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 1 August 2011. There is no information in the case file about any investigation carried out in connection with E.A.’s death in police custody. 2.     The criminal complaint lodged against the applicant 14.     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. 15.     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. 3.     Disciplinary proceedings instituted against the applicant 16.     On 27 April 2011 R.A. sent a letter to the ABA asking for disciplinary proceedings to be instituted 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 in the absence of any evidence. 17.     On 16 June 2011 the ABA Disciplinary Commission issued an opinion, deciding to refer the complaint against the applicant to the Presidium of the ABA ( Azərbaycan Respublikası Vəkillər Kollegiyası Rəyasət Heyəti – hereinafter “the Presidium”). According to the text of the opinion, the applicant stated before the disciplinary commission that he had only been expressing the position of E.A.’s family, who believed that E.A. had been killed by the police. He also referred to the Yasamal District Court’s decision of 15 April 2011, stating that R.A. could not in any event lodge any complaint against him, because he had not made any comment about R.A. 18.     On 24 August 2011 the Presidium held a meeting at which it examined the complaint and then decided to suspend the applicant from the practice of law for a period of one year. It held that the applicant had failed to comply with the provisions of the Law on Advocates and Advocacy Activity (“the Law”) because he had disclosed confidential information constituting lawyer confidentiality ( vəkil sirri ) . The relevant part of the decision reads as follows: “In fact, in accordance with Article 17.1 of the Law on Advocates and Advocacy Activity, all information obtained by a lawyer in the exercise of his professional activity falls under the head of lawyer confidentiality. Pursuant to paragraph 4 of the same article, a lawyer should not disclose information he obtains from a person vis-à-vis whom he is in a position of trust. However, lawyer Khalid Bagirov, instead of submitting to the relevant competent authorities in accordance with the procedure established by law the information which procedurally required a special investigation, at a meeting of the working group of lawyers held on 28 February 2011, stated without referring to any official evidence or reliable source that those arrested by the law-enforcement authorities had died as a result of terrible torture, that the accused had not been provided with a lawyer in police custody, that the suspected and accused had been beaten with truncheons, and that E.A., who had been detained as a suspect in police station no. 25 of the Nizami District Police Office, had also died as a result of a beating. He [the applicant] proposed to organise protests entitled “those arrested do not need a lawyer, but a stick” and used expressions like “in that case the violence can be prevented to some extent” causing damage to the reputation and dignity of police officers. The collaborator of the Bizim Yol newspaper H.Z. spread in the media statements discrediting the police authorities, by using these expressions in his article published on page 5 of the newspaper dated 1 March 2011 under the title “those arrested do not need a lawyer, but a stick” with a subtitle “lawyer Khalid Bagirov proposes to hold protests with this slogan”. It follows that he [the applicant] breached the requirements of Articles 14, 16 §§ 1 and 2, and 17 §§ 1 and 4 of the Law on Advocates and Advocacy Activity”. 19.     On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a complaint with the Nasimi District Court against the Presidium’s decision of 24 August 2011. He alleged that the decision in question had amounted to an unlawful interference with his right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article   10 of the Convention. He further pointed out that he had not disclosed any confidential information relating to lawyer confidentiality, as the allegation about E.A.’s murder by the police had already been made at a press conference by R.R. on 25 January 2011, before the conclusion of a contract between him and R.R. on 7 March 2011. In any event, R.R. had never complained of a breach of lawyer confidentiality by him. 20.     On 3 November 2011 the Nasimi District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim, finding that the Presidium’s decision of 24 August 2011 was lawful and justified. The first-instance court’s judgment made no mention of the applicant’s particular complaint concerning the violation of his right to freedom of expression. The relevant part of the judgment reads as follows: “It was established at the court hearing that claimant Khalid Bagirov, in his role as a lawyer, at a meeting of the working group of lawyers held on 28   February 2011, stated, without referring to any official evidence or reliable source, that people arrested by the law-enforcement authorities had died as a result of terrible torture, that those accused had not been provided with legal representation while in police custody, that suspected and accused people had been beaten with truncheons, and that E.A., who had been detained as a suspect in police station no. 25 of the Nizami District Police Office, had also died as a result of beating. He [the applicant] proposed to organise protests entitled “those arrested do not need a lawyer, but a stick” and used expressions like “in that case the violence can be prevented to some extent” causing damage to the reputation and dignity of police officers. The collaborator of the Bizim Yol newspaper H.Z. spread in the media statements discrediting the police authorities, by using these expressions in his article published on page 5 of the newspaper dated 1   March 2011 under the title “those arrested do not need a lawyer, but a stick” with a subtitle “lawyer Khalid Bagirov proposes to hold protests with this slogan”. At the same time, although claimant Khalid Bagirov admitted that he had made such a statement and he had obtained the information in question from R.R. [E.A.’s mother], the court considers that despite the fact that claimant Khalid Bagirov, as a lawyer, should protect the confidentiality of information obtained in connection with the exercise of his professional activity, he failed to do so or did not submit the information to the relevant competent authority to investigate it.” 21.     On 19 November 2011 the applicant appealed against that judgment, reiterating his previous complaints and arguing that his suspension from the practice of law had amounted to a violation of his rights protected under Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention. 22.     On 11 January 2012 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The appellate court held that the Presidium’s decision of 24 August 2011 was lawful and justified. As regards the applicant’s arguments that R.R. had already made a similar statement to the media previously and that the applicant had only repeated her statement when he was not yet her lawyer, the court found that although the applicant, as a lawyer, should protect the confidentiality of information obtained in connection with the exercise of his professional activity, he failed to do so or did not submit the information to the relevant competent authority to investigate it. The appellate court’s judgment made no mention of the applicant’s specific complaint concerning the violation of his right to freedom of expression. 23.     On 11 May 2012 the Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s judgment. On 11 June 2012 the applicant was provided with a copy of the Supreme Court’s decision.   The applicant’s disbarment (application no. 28198/15) 1.     The applicant’s comments at a court hearing 24.     In August and September 2014 the applicant was one of the two lawyers who represented Mr Ilgar Mammadov in criminal proceedings before the Shaki Court of Appeal. The domestic proceedings concerning Mr   Ilgar Mammadov’s criminal conviction have already been the subject of the Court’s judgment in the case of Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan (no. 2) (no.   919/15, 16 November 2017). 25.     On 25 September 2014 M.H., a judge of the Shaki Court of Appeal, sent a letter to the ABA asking for the institution of disciplinary proceedings against the applicant because of remarks that he had made at the court hearings held in September 2014 before the Shaki Court of Appeal during the criminal proceedings against Mr Ilgar Mammadov. In particular, M.H. noted that at one of the court hearings held in September 2014 the applicant had made the following remarks about the judicial system and a judge of the first-instance court (R.H.) who had participated in the examination of the case of Mr Ilgar Mammadov: “Like State, like court ... If there were justice in Azerbaijan, Judge R.H. would not deliver unfair and partial judgments, nor would an individual like him be a judge” (“ Belə dövlətdə belə də məhkəmə olacaq ... Azərbaycanda ədalət olsaydı, hakim R.H. ədalətsiz və qərəzli hökm çıxarmazdı, nə də onun kimisi hakim işləməzdi ”). 2.     Disciplinary proceedings instituted against the applicant 26.     On 19 November 2014 the Disciplinary Commission of the ABA issued an opinion, deciding to refer the complaint against the applicant to the Presidium. It appears from the documents in the case file that the applicant submitted a written explanation within the framework of the disciplinary proceedings. He stated that he did not remember using the expression “like State, like court”. However, he considered that, as the remark in question was voiced as a continuation of the expression “every court is the court of its State”, it was the assessment made by the defence about the judicial system. As regards the remaining expressions used about Judge R.H., he had been expressing his opinion about the activity of the judge, who had examined the case at the first-instance court, emphasising the latter’s differing approach to the defence and the prosecution, failure to apply equal standards, and the unfair and biased judgment delivered by the judge. 27.     On 10 December 2014 the Presidium held that the applicant had breached the rules of conduct for lawyers on account of the comment that he had made at the court hearing before the Shaki Court of Appeal. The Presidium decided to refer the applicant’s case to a court with a view to his disbarment, relying on Article 22 (VIII) of the Law. It also decided to suspend the applicant’s activity as a lawyer pending a decision by the court. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows: “As regards the statement “like State, like court ... If there were justice in Azerbaijan, Judge R.H. would not deliver unfair and partial judgments, nor would an individual like him be a judge” made by lawyer Khalid Bagirov at a court hearing, the Presidium considers that lawyer Khalid Bagirov, by using these expressions at a court hearing, manifested a disrespectful attitude as a whole towards the state and our statehood, and the reputation of the judge, as well as the legislative and executive authorities electing and appointing that judge, which should be considered as a grave breach of the lawyer ethics ( vəkil etikası ) and an act conducted by him disrespecting the reputation of the legal profession. In accordance with Article 6.1 of the Statute on the rules of conduct for lawyers, a lawyer, while exercising his professional activity, should avoid engaging in conduct that can damage the prestige of the legal profession. In accordance with Article 4.2 of the same Statute, a lawyer in the performance of his professional activity should be an example of conscientiousness for everybody. As set out in the requirements of the Statute, a lawyer must perform his or her duties in such a way as to be an example for everybody. However, lawyer Khalid Bagirov, stating at a public court hearing “like State, like court”, cast a shadow not only over the Azerbaijani judiciary, but most importantly over the State and our statehood, which are holy for every Azerbaijani citizen. The suspicious approach to our State and statehood of Khalid Bagirov as a lawyer, being contrary to civil conscientiousness ( vətəndaş vicdanlılığı ), constitutes a bad example for others. Moreover, by the expression “if there were justice in Azerbaijan, Judge R.H. would not deliver unfair and partial judgments, nor would an individual like him be a judge”, lawyer Khalid Bagirov tarnished in general the reputation of the Azerbaijani judiciary ( Azərbaycan Ədalət Mühakiməsi ).” 28.     On 18 December 2014 the Presidium lodged a request with the Nizami District Court asking for the applicant’s disbarment. 29.     On 10 July 2015 the Nizami District Court delivered its judgment on the merits and ordered the applicant’s disbarment. The court held that the applicant had failed to comply with the rules of conduct for lawyers, as he had made disrespectful statements about the judge, the judicial system and, in particular, the State organs and the statehood of the country at the court hearings before the Shaki Court of Appeal. As regards the legal ground for the applicant’s disbarment, the court held that the failure of the domestic law to specify the grounds for disbarment did not constitute a basis for dispensing lawyers from being subjected to the disciplinary measure provided for by Article 22 of the Law. The court further found that the interference with the applicant’s right under Article 10 of the Convention was justified. The part of the judgment relating to Article 10 of the Convention reads as follows: “The court also notes, in connection with the interference with the right protected under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which constitutes the basis of the defended party’s objection to the claim that the first paragraph of this Article provides that everyone has the right to freedom of expression. The second paragraph of Article 10 of the said Convention provides for the grounds for restrictions on, and interference with, those freedoms. The exercise of those freedoms may be subject to certain formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. The court notes that, as with any right, the right to freedom of expression is not absolute, and an interference with it is possible. As such an interference is provided for by Article 22 (VIII) of the Law on Advocates and Advocacy Activity of the Republic of Azerbaijan, there was no violation of Article 10 of the said Convention in respect of the defended party. The court considers it especially necessary to underline that, although the right to freedom of expression for everyone is enshrined in the domestic and international law, it is totally inadmissible to misuse that right with a view to casting a shadow over our State and statehood, which are holy for every Azerbaijani citizen, and to tarnish the reputation of the judiciary; such a misuse is prevented by the legislation of our State.” 30.     On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against the judgment, claiming that his disbarment had constituted an unjustified interference with his rights protected under Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention. Relying on Article 18 of the Convention, he also claimed that he had been disbarred because of his active involvement in the protection of human rights in the country. 31.     On 11 September 2015 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the Nizami District Court’s judgment of 10 July 2015. 32.     On 26 October 2015 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal, reiterating his previous complaints. 33.     On 12 January 2016 the Supreme Court upheld the Baku Court of Appeal’s judgment of 11 September 2015. Public reaction to the applicant’s disbarment 34.     The applicant’s disbarment attracted significant public and media interest both inside the country and internationally.   A number of domestic and international NGOs condemned the applicant’s disbarment. 35.     On 10 December 2014 the President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe stated about the Presidium’s decision dated 10   December 2014 that “against this background of increasing intimidation of human rights defenders in Azerbaijan, such clear pressure on independent lawyers defending civil society activists is unacceptable”. 36.     On 22 September 2016, following his visit to Azerbaijan, Michel Forst, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, referred in his end of mission statement to the applicant’s disbarment case, noting that he had been unjustifiably disbarred. As regards the situation of the human rights lawyers, the UN Special Rapporteur stated that “disbarments of human rights lawyers, together with criminal prosecutions, searches and freezing of their assets are part of the broader harassment facing human rights defenders in the country”. He also stated that “for those lawyers who are members of the bar association, disciplinary proceedings have been one of the main means of retaliation for their human rights or professional activities”. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW The Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan 37.     Article 47 § I of the Constitution provides: “Everyone enjoys the freedom of thought and speech.” Law on Advocates and Advocacy Activity of 28 December 1999 (“the Law”) 38.     The relevant part of the Law, as in force at the material time, provided as follows: Article 14 Lawyer’s oath “I.     A person admitted as a member of the Bar Association takes the following oath at a meeting of the Presidium of the Bar Association before the State flag of the Republic of Azerbaijan: “I solemnly swear that, by complying with the Constitution and laws of the Republic of Azerbaijan, being independent, I will honestly and conscientiously perform the duties of a lawyer, be fair and principled, courageously and firmly defend human rights and freedoms, and preserve professional confidentiality.” ... Article 16 Lawyer’s duties I.     While performing his or her professional activity a lawyer is obliged: to execute the requirements of the law, use all the means provided for by the legislation to protect the interests of the defended or represented person; to preserve lawyer confidentiality, comply with the lawyer’s oath, and act in accordance with lawyer ethics ; ... Article 17 Lawyer confidentiality ( vəkil sirri ) “I.   The information obtained by a lawyer, and advice and information given by a lawyer in furtherance of his or her professional activity, fall under the head of lawyer confidentiality. II.   Dissemination by a lawyer of information falling under pre-trial investigation confidentiality that the lawyer has become aware of in the course of his professional activity is only allowed with the permission of the prosecutor or the investigator. III.   Lawyers who disseminate information which falls under pre-trial investigation confidentiality are responsible under the legislation of the Republic of Azerbaijan. IV.   A lawyer cannot be called as a witness and questioned about matters he became aware of in connection with the provision of legal assistance to a person who has sought it. A lawyer is not to give explanations about such matters and disseminate information imparted to him by the client. ... Article 21 Disciplinary commission of lawyers I.     The disciplinary commission of lawyers is created within the Presidium of the Bar Association for the purposes of the examination of complaints and applications relating to disciplinary violations committed by lawyers while exercising their professional duties and for the resolution of matters relating to their disciplinary responsibility. ... Article 22 Disciplinary responsibility of lawyers I.     A lawyer is subjected to disciplinary responsibility in the event of disclosure of a breach of the provisions of this Law and other legislative acts, the Statute on the rules of conduct for lawyers ( vəkillərin davranış qaydaları haqqında Əsasnamə ), and the norms of lawyer ethics ( vəkil etikası normaları ) in the exercise of his or her professional duty. ... VI.   The Presidium of the Bar Association may apply in respect of a lawyer the following disciplinary sanctions on the basis of an opinion of the disciplinary commission: admonition; reprimand; suspension from practising for a period from three months to one year; ... VIII.   If there are grounds serving as a basis for exclusion ( xaric edilməyə səbəb ola biləcək əsaslar ) of a lawyer from the Bar Association, on the basis of an opinion of the disciplinary commission, the Presidium of the Bar Association can apply to a court for resolution of the matter and suspend the lawyer’s activity until the entry into force of the court decision on the issue.” III.     RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL DOCUMENTS 39.     Recommendation R (2000) 21 of the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers to member States on the freedom of exercise of the profession of lawyer (adopted on 25 October 2000) states as follows: “The Committee of Ministers ... ... Underlining the fundamental role that lawyers and professional associations of lawyers also play in ensuring the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms; Desiring to promote the freedom of exercise of the profession of lawyer in order to strengthen the Rule of Law, in which lawyers take part, in particular in the role of defending individual freedoms; Conscious of the need for a fair system of administration of justice which guarantees the independence of lawyers in the discharge of their professional duties without any improper restriction, influence, inducement, pressure, threats or interference, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason; ... Recommends the governments of member States to take or reinforce, as the case may be, all measures they consider necessary with a view to the implementation of the principles contained in this Recommendation. ... Principle I - General Principles on the freedom of exercise of the profession of lawyer 1.     All necessary measures should be taken to respect, protect and promote the freedom of exercise of the profession of lawyer without discrimination and without improper interference from the authorities or the public, in particular in the light of the relevant provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. 2.     Decisions concerning the authorisation to practice as a lawyer or to accede to this profession should be taken by an independent body. Such decisions, whether or not they are taken by an independent body, should be subject to a review by an independent and impartial judicial authority. 3.     Lawyers should enjoy freedom of belief, expression, movement, association and assembly, and, in particular, should have the right to take part in public discussions on matters concerning the law and the administration of justice and suggest legislative reforms. 4.     Lawyers should not suffer or be threatened with any sanctions or pressure when acting in accordance with their professional standards. ... Principle III – Role and duty of lawyers 1.     Bar associations or other lawyers’ professional associations should draw up professional standards and codes of conduct and should ensure that, in defending the legitimate rights and interests of their clients, lawyers have a duty to act independently, diligently and fairly. 2.     Professional secrecy should be respected by lawyers in accordance with internal laws, regulations and professional standards. Any violation of this secrecy, without the consent of the client, should be subject to appropriate sanctions. ...” 40.     The Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers (adopted by the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, held in Havana, Cuba, from 27   August to 7   September 1990) state, in particular: “Qualification and training ... 10.     Governments, professional associations of lawyers and educational institutions shall ensure that there is no discrimination against a person with respect to entry into or continued practice within the legal profession on the grounds of race, colour, sex, ethnic origin, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, economic or other status, except that a requirement, that a lawyer must be a national of the country concerned, shall not be considered discriminatory. ... Duties and responsibilities ... 16.     Governments shall ensure that lawyers (a) are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference; (b) are able to travel and to consult with their clients freely both within their own country and abroad; and (c) shall not suffer, or be threatened with, prosecution or administrative, economic or other sanctions for any action taken in accordance with recognised professional duties, standards and ethics. ... Freedom of expression and association 23.     Lawyers like other citizens are entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association and assembly. In particular, they shall have the right to take part in public discussion of matters concerning the law, the administration of justice and the promotion and protection of human rights and to join or form local, national or international organisations and attend their meetings, without suffering professional restrictions by reason of their lawful action or their membership in a lawful organisation. In exercising these rights, lawyers shall always conduct themselves in accordance with the law and the recognised standards and ethics of the legal profession. ...” 41.     The relevant parts of the annual report (A/71/348) to the UN General Assembly (2016, 71 st session of the General Assembly) of the Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Council on the independence of judges and lawyers, Mónica Pinto, state: “E. Ethics, accountability and disciplinary measures ... 96. Disbarment, which consists in taking away a lawyer’s licence to practice law, possibly for life, constitutes the ultimate sanction for the most serious violations of the code of ethics and professional standards. In many countries, lawyers often face the threat of disbarment. Such threats may be aimed at undermining the independence of a lawyer, at intimidating a lawyer to prevent the discharge of professional duties or at carrying out an act of reprisal for activities a lawyer may have carried out in the legitimate exercise of his or her professional responsibilities. The Special Rapporteur wishes to stress that disbarment should only be imposed in the most serious cases of misconduct, as provided in the professional code of conduct, and only after a due process in front of an independent and impartial body granting all guarantees to the accused lawyer. ...” THE LAW I.     JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 42.     The Court considers that, in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications should be joined, given their similar factual and legal background. II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 OF THE CONVENTION 43.     The applicant complained under Article 10 of the Convention that his right to freedom of expression had been infringed in that he had been suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year and had subsequently been disbarred on account of statements he had made about police brutality and the functioning of the judicial system in the country. Article 10 of the Convention reads as follows: “1.   Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2.     The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.” Admissibility 44.     The Court notes that these complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible. Merits 1.     As regards the applicant’s suspension from the practice of law (a)     The parties’ submissions (i)     The applicant 45.     The applicant maintained that his suspension from the practice of law for a period of one year had amounted to an infringement of his right to freedom of expression. In particular, he submitted that the interference with his right to freedom of expression had not been prescribed by law and had not pursued any legitimate aim. The applicant noted that he had not disclosed any information covered by lawyer confidentiality. The allegation concerning E.A.’s death in police custody as a result of torture had been made by R.R. on 25 January 2011 at a press conference, and he had merely referred to that statement. In any event, as he had signed a contract with R.R. only on 7 March 2011, on 28 February 2011 he could not have been in possession of any confidential information received from his client. The applicant further pointed out that the Law did not comply with the requirements of the quality of law because although it provided a range of sanctions in respect of disciplinary responsibility of lawyers it did not specify in which circumstances these sanctions should be applied. 46.     Relying on the Court’s case-law, the applicant further submitted that his suspension from the practice of law could not in any event be considered as necessary in a democratic society and proportionate. He noted that the overall issue of police violence had been and remained a very important issue of public interest in Azerbaijan. His intention had not been to damage the authority of the police, but to bring these matters into the public domain on the basis of the case of E.A.’s violent death in police custody and to propose new methods to address such impunity. That is why the applicant had proposed a legitimate and non-violent method of dissent, a protest action by lawyers wearing robes. He also pointed out that there was a general state of impunity in the country as regards police brutality, emphasising that nobody had been brought to justice in connection with E.A.’s death in police custody. In that connection, the applicant also referred to various statements from high-ranking officials noting that police officers would not be punished in Azerbaijan. (ii)     The Government 47.     The Government agreed that the applicant’s suspension from the legal profession had constituted an interference with his right to freedom of expression. That interference had been prescribed by Article 22 of the Law and pursued the legitimate aims of preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence or maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. 48.     As regards its necessity in a democratic society, the Government submitted that a distinction must be drawn between a lawyer’s statement in the context of judicial proceedings and a statement made outside the context of such proceedings. The applicant had exaggerated his grievances by asserting that his client’s son had been murdered by the police as a result of torture. The statement had been made not only at a meeting of lawyers, but also to the press. The applicant had made this statement before using the ordinary available remedies, while the criminal proceedings were still pending. According to the Government, this could be regarded as an attempt to exert pressure on the investigating authorities and, more generally, to impair the independence of the judiciary. 49.     The Government further submitted that the fact that the applicant had publicly criticised the administration of justice in Azerbaijan and then exercised a legal remedy with regard to the complaint was scarcely compatible with the contribution it was legitimate to expect lawyers to make to maintaining public confidence in the judicial authorities. This was reinforced by the seriousness and general nature of the criticisms made by the applicant and the tone in which he chose to make them. For example, he considered holding a demonstration to be a tactic of last resort because, in his view, laws and human rights had been flagrantly disregarded. Lastly, having regard to the penalty imposed on the applicant, the Government considered that the authorities had not gone beyond their margin of appreciation in punishing the applicant. (iii)     The third party 50.     The International Commission of Jurists pointed out the special role of lawyers in the administration of justice, submitting that close scrutiny of any restrictions on their rights by States should be undertaken with a view to ensuring respect not only for the rights of lawyers, but also for their capacity to effectively carry out their professional functions. The third party noted that in some States legal proceedings for protection of human rights may be unavailable or ineffective and, in such circumstances, for lawyers to be effective in protecting the rights of their clients they may need to engage in activity, which may include statements or other forms of expression, that takes place outside of the strict confines of judicial proceedings. Such activity may be seen as necessary or useful for a variety of reasons, for example to draw the attention of the public to a case, or to assist in research and fact-finding in respect of that case. As such activities are part and parcel of a lawyer’s professional functions, strict scrutiny of restrictions on freedom of expression of lawyers outside of court is also necessary. Moreover, as a consequence of the nature of their profession, lawyers have a wider societal role and responsibility in drawing attention to concerns relating to the justice system. 51.     The third party further submitted that comments by a lawyer about the State’s responsibility for the ill-treatment or death of a person in custody should be presumed to constitute a protected form of expression, unless those comments can be shown to have been made in bad faith. Furthermore, where such matters are addressed, any restrictions on lawyers’ freedom of expression on the grounds of confidentiality of proceedings should be subjected to particularly strict scrutiny for necessity and proportionality, taking into account the importance of the public interest in receiving information on these issues. Where information or allegations are already in the public domain, a lawyer should not be penalised on the grounds of confidentiality or secrecy of proceedings for expressing his views on these matters. Moreover, it is clear that where the client supports the disclosure of the information in the public domain, the lawyer should not be prohibited from disclosing it by principles of lawyer-client confidentiality. Indeed, a lawyer might be failing in his duty to zealously defend the interests of a client where he declined to speak publicly, contrary to the request of the client, about violations of the client’s human rights. (b)     The Court’s assessment (i)     Whether there was interference 52.     The Court notes that it is not in dispute between the parties that the applicant’s suspension from the practice of law for a period of one year constituted an interference with the exercise of his right to freedom of expression, as guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention. That is also the Court’s opinion. (ii)     Whether the interference was justified 53.     Such an interference will constitute a breach of Article 10 unless it was “prescribed by law”, pursued one or more legitimate aims under paragraph 2, and was “necessary in a democratic society” for the achievement of those aims (see Hajibeyli and Aliyev v. Azerbaijan , nos.   6477/08 and 10414/08, § 54, 19 April 2018). Moreover, in exercising its supervisory jurisdiction, the Court must look at the impugned interference in the light of the case as a whole, including the content of the remarks in question and the context in which the applicant made them, bearing in mind the special status of lawyers in the administration of justice as int