CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 octobre 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Communicated on 20 October 2020 Published on 9 November 2020   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 36057/18 Farhad Sovet oglu MEHDIYEV against Azerbaijan lodged on 21 July 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant, who was a lawyer, suspended his bar membership in February 2012 on account of his academic activities and was readmitted to the Azerbaijani Bar Association (“the ABA”) on 7   September 2016 following his request in that connection. However, only eight days after that, on 15 September 2016 the ABA quashed its previous decision concerning the applicant’s readmission to the ABA for failure of the applicant to pay membership fees during the period between 2009 and 2012. The domestic courts, by a final decision of the Supreme Court of 27   December 2017, which was served on the applicant on 23 January 2018, dismissed his complaint against the ABA’s decision of 25 September 2016, finding the latter decision lawful and justified. Relying on Articles 6, 8, 10 and 18 of the Convention, the applicant complains that his right to a reasoned decision was breached, his disbarment amounted to an unlawful interference with his right to respect for his private life and his right to freedom of expression, and that his Convention rights were restricted for purposes other than those prescribed in the Convention.   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 disbarment? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?