Summary: Hearing 1
Muzaffar Bakhishov was a practicing lawyer until his disbarment by the decision of the Bar Association Presidium on April 1, 2016. Supreme Court judge Tatyana Goldman had complained to the Bar Association against Muzaffar Bakhishov over the latter’s comments about Supreme Court chairman Ramiz Rzayev in a media interview. As a lawyer, Muzaffar Bakhishov defended the rights of a number of political prisoners. The Bar Association Presidium has submitted a request to Narimanov District Court to terminate Muzaffar Bakhishov’s lawyer activity;
Muzaffar Bakhishov filed three motions at the hearing. In the first motion, the lawyer requested substitution of Bar Association Presidium with Bar Association as the plaintiff, justifying his request with the fact that Bar Association Presidium was not a legal entity, but a governing body of a legal entity. The motion was not granted;
In the second motion, the lawyer requested that the regulations of the Bar Association, the statutes of the lawyer disciplinary commission and the statutes on rules of conduct for lawyers be obtained and presented to him. The motion was granted;
In the third motion, Muzaffar Bakhishov requested the court to decline to hear the lawsuit on the ground of wrong plaintiff. The motion was left undecided.
Narimanov District Court, chaired by Judge Gultakin Asadova, held a preliminary hearing on Bar Association Presidium’s request to terminate the lawyer activity of lawyer Muzaffar Bakhishov. The hearing was attended by the plaintiff Bar Association Presidium’s representative Shahmar Mammadov and the defendant Muzaffar Bakhishov.
Muzaffar Bakhishov’s motions:
At today’s hearing, Muzaffar Bakhishov filed several motions.
In his first motion, the lawyer argued that the plaintiff should be the Bar Association itself instead of the Presidium of Bar Association. Muzaffar Bakhishov justified his argument with the fact that Bar Association Presidium was not a legal entity, but a governing body of a legal entity. He said according to the legislation, lawsuits could be filed by legal entities and their governing bodies could not file lawsuits independently. The lawyer asked the court to replace the improper plaintiff with the proper plaintiff, i.e. Bar Association Presidium with Bar Association.
Upon a deliberation on bench, the judge rejected the motion. In justification for rejection, the judge said that the plaintiff may be replaced with the proper plaintiff only with the consent of the plaintiff.
In the second motion, the lawyer requested that the regulations of the Bar Association, the statutes of the lawyer disciplinary commission and the statutes on rules of conduct for lawyers be obtained and presented to him. Bakhishov said that he could not find those documents on the website of the Bar Association, and that these documents had not been officially published anywhere.
The court sustained this motion and ordered the representative of Bar Association Presidium to present the documents within five days.
In the third motion, Muzaffar Bakhishov requested the court to decline to hear the lawsuit. He once again stressed that the lawsuit had been filed by the wrong plaintiff. Muzaffar Bakhishov noted that according to civil procedural legislation, a legal entity has a civil procedural capacity to file a lawsuit, while a governing body of a legal entity has not.
Shahmar Mammadov, the representative of Bar Association Presidium, said that Bar Association Presidium has the right to represent the Bar Association and that the motion should be rejected as unfounded.
The judge deferred this motion, saying that it could not be examined at a preliminary court hearing, and would be decided during the trial.
The trial date was set for May 23, 15.00.