The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled on Thursday that Azerbaijan violated the freedom of expression of a lawyer who was disbarred for filing a corruption complaint against the director of a legal consultancy.

The applicant, Afgan Mammadov, argued that his disbarment was a form of retaliation for exercising his freedom of expression under Article 10 paragraph 2 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The Court ruled that all of his actions, including filing a complaint of alleged corruption, questioning the legitimacy of the Presidium of Azerbaijani Bar Association (ABA), and his refusal to participate in-person in disciplinary proceedings due to his belief in their bias, constituted the exercise of his freedom of expression.

By referring to previous case law, the Court highlighted that the applicant’s complaint against the director’s alleged manipulation of lawyer warrants and the records of them are matters of high public interest with a high level of protection from freedom of expression.

The court also highlighted the importance of disclosing accurate and reliable information while exercising freedom of expression. Regarding this, the court ruled that the applicant’s complaint was not a baseless accusation. The court emphasized the domestic courts’ disregard for the seriousness of such allegations and failure to conduct any independent judicial inquiry into the allegations made. Subsequently, the Court found that the domestic courts’ interpretation of domestic legislation was an arbitrary interference with freedom of expression.

The government’s stance was that the lawyer’s disbarment was strictly related to his professional activity as a lawyer for tainting the reputation of the director of the Legal Consultancy. The government further implied that this hindered the functioning of the legal consultancy and therefore, breached the lawyers’ ethics under Article 16, paragraph I, and Article 22, paragraph I, of the Law on Advocates and Advocacy Activity. The Court noted that the provisions of the Law on Advocates and Advocacy Activity are too broad and do not provide a clear definition of the breach of lawyers’ ethics to support the grounds for disbarment.

The Court found that the applicant’s disbarment was not proportionate because the use of such harshest disciplinary measures without assessing the scope of the alleged damage can discourage other lawyers from reporting misconduct.