CEDHCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 novembre 2024
- ECLI
- ECLI:CEDH:001-241566
- Date
- 25 novembre 2024
- Publication
- 25 novembre 2024
droits fondamentauxCEDH
Source : DILA / Judilibre · open data
Mes notes
privées · visibles par vous seulRésumé structuré
version préliminaireFaits
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Procédure
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Question juridique
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Solution
source officielleCommunicated
Résumé généré automatiquement — à vérifier avec la décision originale.
Analyse IA non disponible
Générez un résumé intelligent de cette décision
Texte intégral
.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 } Published on 16 December 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no. 38251/22 Zaman SAMADOV against Azerbaijan lodged on 27 July 2022 communicated on 25 November 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant, who was a lawyer, was disbarred on account of alleged indecent love messages that he had exchanged with a former client outside the context of his professional activity. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant complains that his disbarment was unlawful and amounted to a breach of his right to respect for his private life. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 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, as a result of his disbarment because of messages that the applicant had exchanged with a former client? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2?Citations
Aucune citation répertoriée pour cette décision.
Décisions connexes
Aucune décision similaire identifiée pour le moment.
Synthèse
- Juridiction
- CEDH
- Chambre
- CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
- Date
- 25 novembre 2024
- Matière
- droits fondamentaux
Référence
ECLI:CEDH:001-241566
Données disponibles
- Texte intégral
- Résumé officiel