4.  The first applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Moscow. The second applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Irkutsk. 5.  On 20 February 2009, the first applicant, a lawyer at the time, was elected to be a member of the council of the Irkutsk Regional Bar (“the Bar”). 6.  On 24 October 2010 the members of the council conducted elections for the presidency of the Bar. Five members of the Council voted for S. and the other five voted for the second applicant. 7.  On 25 November 2010 the second applicant issued an order appointing herself acting President of the Bar. 8.  On an unspecified date a group of lawyers applied to the Commercial Court of the Irkutsk Region challenging the second applicant’s appointment. The court granted their request to enjoin the second applicant from fulfilling the functions of acting president pending the outcome of the proceedings. 9.  On 19 January 2012 the Commercial Court discontinued the proceedings. The final decision on the matter was taken by the Supreme Commercial Court on 26 September 2012. 10.  On 11 February, 2 March and 5 April 2011 several members of the Bar, including the applicants, lodged complaints with the President of the Commercial Court of the Irkutsk Region, to the Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian Federation and to the Supreme Judicial Qualifications Board, alleging that Judge R. had acted in contravention of the applicable laws on jurisdiction when she had accepted the claims concerning the second applicant’s appointment to the office of President of the Bar for consideration. They further claimed that (1)  S. had announced in public that his opponents in the council of the Bar would be disbarred and that he would organise a “red terror” in response to the “orange revolution”; (2)  S.’s ultimate goal had been to get rid of his opponents in the Council of the Bar through rotation and disbarment; (3)  S. had had an extra‑professional relationship with the Deputy President of the Regional Commercial Court, who had been instrumental in ensuring a favourable outcome in the proceedings against the second applicant’s appointment; (4)  through his personal connections with the Deputy President of the Regional Commercial Court, S. had obtained an injunction against the second applicant and ensured that a group of bailiffs had been present at the Bar’s conference in order to put pressure on the participants and his opponents. 11.  On an unspecified date in July 2011 the lawyers posted their complaints on the website of the President of the Russian Federation. They sent a copy of their complaint to the President of the Supreme Commercial Court and to the Public Anticorruption Committee. 12.  On 18 July 2011 the First Deputy of the President of the Regional Commercial Court informed the plaintiffs that their allegations had not been confirmed by the conducted investigation. 13.  On 27 July 2011 the President of the Regional Commercial Court forwarded a copy of the lawyers’ complaint to the Bar and the First Vice‑President of the Bar instituted disciplinary proceedings against the applicants. 14.  On 31 October 2011 the council of the Bar disbarred the first applicant. The council considered that (1)  the letters sent by the group of the lawyers to the Judicial Qualifications Board and the President of the Commercial Court had not been a correct or permissible conduct in response to the actions of the judges of the Commercial Court; (2)  the complaints had contained untrue allegations damaging to the reputation and goodwill of Judges B. and R., and S., a lawyer; (3)  the first applicant had been disrespectful towards them. The Council concluded that (1)  the first applicant had violated the relevant legislation and the Code of Professional Conduct for Lawyers (Кодекс профессиональной этики адвоката); (2)  the dissemination of information damaging the reputation and goodwill of judges and lawyers was incompatible with membership of the Bar; (3)  the first applicant’s conduct had disparaged the Bar and its members. 15.  On 8 December 2011 the Kirovskiy District Court of Irkutsk dismissed a complaint lodged by the first applicant against the decision of 31 October 2011. 16.  On 11 March 2012 the Irkutsk Regional Court upheld the judgment of 8 December 2011 on appeal. 17.  On 16 December 2011 the council of the Bar disbarred the second applicant. The reasons underlying the council’s decision were identical to the one used in the first applicant’s case. 18.  On 27 December 2011 the Kirovskiy District Court of Irkutsk dismissed a complaint lodged by the second applicant against the decision of 16 December 2011. 19.  On 19 April 2012 the Irkutsk Regional Court upheld the judgment of 27 December 2011 on appeal.