Introduction
On 18 March 2025, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered its judgment in Farhad Mehdiyev v. Azerbaijan (Application no. 36057/18), finding a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The Court ruled that the Azerbaijani Bar Association’s decision to terminate the applicant’s right to practise law was not “in accordance with the law.”
Facts and Procedural History
The applicant, Farhad Mehdiyev, was admitted to the Azerbaijani Bar Association (ABA) in 2009 and became a licensed attorney. In 2012, he voluntarily withdrew from the Bar to focus on his academic and scientific work. However, in 2016, he was readmitted to the ABA and took the professional oath. Merely a few days later, the ABA revoked his membership, citing unpaid membership fees from the period between 2009 and 2012.
Mr. Mehdiyev challenged this decision before the domestic courts, alleging it was unlawful, but his claims were dismissed at all levels of the Azerbaijani judiciary. He subsequently lodged an application with the ECtHR.
Legal Assessment
1. Applicability of Article 8 ECHR
The Court first ruled that Article 8 was applicable. The termination of the applicant’s ability to practise as a lawyer had a direct impact on his professional life, personal development, and social relations. Referring to its prior case law, particularly Namazov v. Azerbaijan and Bagirov v. Azerbaijan, the Court reiterated that disbarment interferes with the core aspects of private life.
2. The “In Accordance with the Law” Requirement
The ECtHR found that the interference was not “in accordance with the law.” According to Article 23 of the Azerbaijani Law on Advocates, disbarment for failure to pay membership fees can only be executed through a court decision. However, the ABA revoked the applicant’s membership unilaterally, without seeking judicial approval. The domestic courts also overlooked this safeguard in their review.
Thus, the interference lacked a legal basis under national law and failed to meet the “foreseeability” and “legal certainty” standards required by the Convention.
3. Legitimate Aim and Necessity in a Democratic Society
Since the interference did not satisfy the “lawfulness” criterion, the Court did not proceed to assess whether the measure pursued a legitimate aim or was necessary in a democratic society.
Outcome and Just Satisfaction
The Court found a violation of Article 8 and awarded the applicant €4,500 in non-pecuniary damages and €1,500 in costs and expenses. The Court did not prescribe any specific individual measures, such as reinstatement to the Bar, leaving this to the discretion of Azerbaijani authorities under Article 46 of the Convention.
Analysis
This judgment underscores the importance of procedural safeguards and legal certainty in disciplinary proceedings against legal professionals. The Court’s decision signals that even autonomous professional bodies such as bar associations must comply with national and international legal standards when imposing sanctions as severe as disbarment.
The case also reflects ongoing concerns regarding the independence of the legal profession in Azerbaijan and reaffirms the critical role of Article 8 in protecting professional reputations and livelihoods.
Conclusion
The Farhad Mehdiyev v. Azerbaijan ruling is a significant contribution to the Court’s jurisprudence on the intersection of private life and professional discipline. It reinforces the principle that disbarment proceedings must be conducted under strict legal procedures and with sufficient judicial oversight to prevent arbitrary interference with the right to practise law.
