Bagirov v Azerbaijan
/The case concerned a complaint made by Khalid Bagirov, a lawyer and member of the Azerbaijani Bar Association (ABA), that he had been suspended from practising law and then disbarred because of statements he had made about police brutality and the functioning of the judicial system in the country.
Photo: Frontline Defenders
Facts
In February 2011 Mr Bagirov attended a meeting with other lawyers to discuss problems faced by the legal profession in Azerbaijan. At this occasion he commented on police brutality and the recent death in custody of an individual E.A., whose mother later became his client. His comments were reported in the press. Following that, the ABA instituted disciplinary proceedings against Mr Bagirov for defamation of the police. In August 2011 the applicant was suspended from practising law for one year on the grounds of the alleged breach of lawyer confidentiality. The applicant challenged this decision arguing that the confidentiality was not broken as the client had given a press conference saying that the police had tortured and killed E.A. already in February 2011.
In 2014, Mr Bagirov faced further disciplinary proceedings for remarks he had made while representing an opposition politician, Ilgar Mammadov. The applicant was disbarred in July 2015 as ordered by the domestic courts. The court found in particular that the comments Mr Bagirov made about the judicial system had ‘cast a shadow over our State’ and ‘tarnished the reputation of the judiciary.’ The decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal in 2015 and by the Supreme Court in 2016.
Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
The Court found a violation of Article 8 (right to private life) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention.
Regarding Article 10, the Court held that the applicant’s suspension had amounted to an interference with the exercise of his right to freedom of expression. According to the ECtHR, the applicant had not breached the secrecy of the judicial investigation by commenting on or disclosing any document relating to the investigation, as he merely reiterated the victim’s mother’s statements. The Court also found that the applicant’s disbarment had amounted to a violation of Article 10 as the reasons given by the domestic courts in support of the applicant’s disbarment had not been relevant and sufficient and the sanction imposed on the applicant had been disproportionate.
Useful links: