Summary: Hearing 3
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’s representative Samad Rahimli reiterated their written motion for a stay of proceedings until the issuance of the final decision on their lawsuit filed with Baku Administrative Economic Court #2 requesting the annulment of the Bar Association Presidium’s decision of April 01, 2016;
Bar Association Presidium’s representative Shahmar Mammadov asked for the rejection of the motion;
The judge sustained the motion, and the current proceedings were suspended until the issuance of the final decision by Baku Administrative Economic Court #2 on the lawsuit requesting the annulment of the Bar Association Presidium’s decision of April 01, 2016.
Narimanov District Court, chaired by Judge Gultakin Asadova, held a hearing on Bar Association Presidium’s request to terminate the lawyer activity of lawyer Muzaffar Bakhishov. The hearing was attended by plaintiff Bar Association Presidium’s representative Shahmar Mammadov, defendant Muzaffar Bakhishov and defendant’s representative Samad Rahimli.
Motion by the defendant’s representative:
At the hearing, defendant Muzaffar Bakhishov’s representative Samad Rahimli reiterated their written motion for a stay of proceedings until the issuance of the final decision on their lawsuit filed with Baku Administrative Economic Court #2 requesting the annulment of the Bar Association Presidium’s decision of April 01, 2016.
He reminded that they filed a lawsuit with Baku Administrative Economic Court #2 on May 23, 2016, requesting the revocation of the Bar Association Presidium’s decision of April 01, 2016. Rahimli noted that, according to Article 254.1.4 of Civil Procedural Code, the judge shall be obliged to suspend the proceedings in the event of impossibility of hearing the case prior to the completion of another case heard under the Constitutional Court proceedings or civil, criminal or administrative procedure.
Bar Association Presidium’s representative Shahmar Mammadov noted that the lawsuit to annul the Bar Association Presidium’s decision of April 01, 2016 should have been filed with a district court per standard procedure instead of Baku Administrative Economic Court #2, as a justification saying that the Bar Association is not defined as an administrative body in the Law on Administrative Proceeding. Shahmar Mammadov added that even if it were filed in administrative procedure, it should have been filed not with Baku Administrative Economic Court #2, but Baku Administrative Economic Court #1 in accordance with the address of the Bar Association Presidium. He further noted that filing a lawsuit with another court does not prevent the continuation of the examination of the lawsuit in the present court. Shahmar Mammadov added that the defense motion sought to artificially prolong the court proceedings. He requested that the motion be rejected.
Muzaffar Bakhishov’s representative Samad Rahimli responded that as the Law on Administrative Proceeding specified the bodies authorized to adopt an administrative act in its classification of administrative bodies and as the Bar Association Presidium was a body adopting administrative acts, the lawsuit had rightly been filed with Baku Administrative Economic Court #2.
Decision on the motion:
According to the court’s ruling, the motion filed by Muzaffar Bakhishov’s representative was sustained, and the current proceedings were suspended until the issuance of the final decision by Baku Administrative Economic Court #2 on the lawsuit requesting the annulment of the Bar Association Presidium’s decision of April 01, 2016