CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 septembre 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 }   Communicated on 3 September 2018   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 43327/14 Afgan Mammad oglu MAMMADOV against Azerbaijan lodged on 27 May 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the disbarment of the applicant, who was an advocate, following his statements about the alleged unlawful activities in the legal profession in the country. 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.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of association within the meaning of Article   11 §   1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   11 § 2?