CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 juin 2018

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 4 June 2018   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 68035/17 Alayif Hasan oglu HASANOV against Azerbaijan lodged on 7 September 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the disbarment of the applicant who was an advocate specialising in the field of protection of human 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 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.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions as a result of his disbarment, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1? If so, was that interference necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest? In particular, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V)?   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?