CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 septembre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 15 September 2020 Published on 5 October 2020   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 39797/19 Nemat KARIMLI against Azerbaijan lodged on 24 June 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the suspension of the applicant, who was a lawyer, from the practice of law for a period of one year on account of the statements that he made to the press on an ongoing criminal investigation. The domestic courts, by a final decision of the Supreme Court dated 13   March 2019, dismissed the applicant’s complaints contesting his suspension from the practice of law, finding that his suspension had been lawful and justified. 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 right to respect for his private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, on account of his suspension from the practice of law for a period of one year? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?   3.     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? In particular, was the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression because of his statements to the press justified under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention?   4.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions as a result of his suspension from the practice of law for a period of one year, 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)?   5.     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?