‘Public order’ as pretext: Azerbaijan’s recent legislative changes

Legislative changes in Azerbaijan

In recent days, legislative amendments adopted and put up for discussion in Azerbaijan‘s Milli Majlis have covered a wide range of issues — from the protection of cultural heritage and online behaviour to road traffic regulations and the Law on Notaries.

Taken individually, these changes address different areas, but viewed together they point to the state’s transition to a new phase of punitive policy.

The terms and toponyms used in this JAMnews material, as well as the views and ideas expressed, reflect solely the position of the author or a particular community and may not coincide with the views of JAMnews or its individual staff members.

Protection of national cultural heritage

Recent legislative changes have significantly tightened penalties in the area of protecting national historical and cultural monuments. Amendments to the Code of Administrative Offences and the Criminal Code have increased fines for damage to cultural heritage and, in some cases, expanded criminal liability.

Official explanations say the changes are intended to strengthen the protection of national cultural heritage. In particular, tougher penalties are deemed necessary to prevent the destruction of monuments in territories reclaimed from occupation, as well as other cultural heritage sites.

The legislature has also introduced separate liability for the destruction of monuments resulting from negligence or indifference.

Against this backdrop, experts note that previous fines were too low to serve as a deterrent for companies and officials. The tougher sanctions are intended to reduce the risk of careless treatment of historical monuments by construction firms and public officials.

At the same time, human rights defenders warn that the effectiveness of the law will depend on how it is enforced. They stress that it is not only the existence of high fines that matters, but their consistent application without exceptions; otherwise, selective enforcement would undermine the goal of protecting cultural heritage.

• European Parliament resolution on Azerbaijan: ‘Political prisoners must be released immediately’
• What Azerbaijan’s plan to place internal troops under presidential control could mean
• New system of total digital surveillance in Azerbaijan: legal and technological perspectives

Internet and ‘public morality’

Parliament has approved, at first reading, new restrictions on the online space “to protect public morality”. The adopted changes target both the online calls for prostitution and social media posts deemed to show “blatant disrespect for society”.

• Online calls for prostitution

For the first time, Article 524.2 is being introduced into the Code of Administrative Offences. Open calls via the internet to engage in prostitution, or large-scale online mediation in providing such services, will be treated as an administrative offence. The penalty is a fine of 500 manats (around $300).

By comparison, until now prostitution itself has been punishable by a fine of 100 manats (around $60). As a result, for those seeking clients online, the fine increases fivefold — from 100 to 500 manats. These changes were discussed and approved at a session of the Milli Majlis on 19 December.

• ‘Disrespectful’ online content

Amendments to the Law on Information ban the distribution on websites and social media of content that openly shows disrespect for society and contradicts norms of public morality.

This category includes videos containing obscene language, indecent gestures, as well as the display of intimate body parts in a manner said to run counter to national moral values. Such actions will now be classified as “minor hooliganism” and subject to administrative penalties. Under the bill, a first offence carries a fine of between 500 and 1,000 manats (around $300–600) or, if deemed necessary, administrative arrest for up to 30 days.

By contrast, ordinary “minor hooliganism” — such as swearing in public — is currently punishable by a fine of 50–100 manats (around $30–60) or arrest for up to 15 days. This means that penalties for similar conduct in the online sphere could increase by up to ten times.

Lawmakers’ rationale

During debates in the Milli Majlis, MPs said there had been a recent rise in unethical appeals and actions on social media that run counter to national values. Particular public concern, they said, has been caused by videos on platforms such as TikTok that set a negative example for teenagers.

The explanatory note to the bill argues that such content has a harmful impact on young people’s behaviour, while social media algorithms help spread it to wider audiences. It stresses the need to close a legal gap by clarifying mechanisms of liability.

Expert opinions and public reaction

The move has prompted mixed reactions. Some sociologists have welcomed the punishment of what they describe as “immoral behaviour” on social media. Sociologist Uzeyir Shafiyev argues that internet users should be aware of their legal responsibility in the virtual space in the same way as in real life, and describes the actions of law enforcement agencies as “deserving of approval”.

At the same time, human rights defenders and media experts warn that vague wording such as “blatant disrespect for society” could be used to suppress any form of critical expression. For example, social media posts criticising the government or containing satire could easily be deemed “contrary to morality” and lead to administrative arrest.

Organisations such as Freedom House have already noted that internet freedom in Azerbaijan is severely restricted. Independent local lawyers also point out that charges of “hooliganism” have previously been used in the arrests of a number of activists. In this context, the new provisions are seen as carrying the risk of further curbs on freedom of expression.

Questions have also been raised about how such a vast volume of online content will be monitored and punished in practice.

Concerns focus both on the technical challenges of enforcing the law and on the independence of the courts. Ultimately, the effectiveness of these measures will depend on their fair and non-selective application.

Road hooliganism and traffic safety

Administrative penalties in the area of road traffic have also been tightened. In particular, provisions targeting so-called “road hooliganism” — drivers’ actions that grossly violate public order — have been expanded. This category includes demonstrative drifting, illegal street racing, tyre-burning and similar behaviour by drivers of cars and mopeds.

The core of the changes lies in extending liability for road hooliganism to moped riders, as well as in a general increase in fines.

It is reported that courts will be able to take the offender’s personal circumstances into account and, where necessary, impose administrative arrest ranging from 15 days to one month. Short-term arrest for road hooliganism had previously been предусмотрен in law, but in practice moped riders were often excluded from this category. That exemption has now been removed.

Why measures are being tightened

It is noted that in recent years cases of road hooliganism have increased in Baku and the regions — including illegal street racing and noisy drifting, particularly at night, often involving mopeds and motorcycles. Lawmakers say such actions amount to “blatant disrespect for public order” and disturb the peace of residents.

Road safety experts add that previously low fines meant some young drivers came to see “road hooliganism” as normal behaviour. There have been cases where offenders, after paying a 500-manat fine, went on to stage drifting again. The sharp tightening of penalties — especially for repeat and dangerous offences, with the prospect of fines running into the thousands of manats and lengthy arrest — is intended to act as a deterrent.

• Interrogations in Azerbaijan: experts warn of government plan to crash opposition
• HRW: ‘Azerbaijan steps up campaign targeting critics abroad’
• Collapse of old elite? How Ramiz Mehtiev’s arrest is changing Azerbaijan

Amendments to Law on Notaries

A number of changes to the legal system have also drawn attention. At a session of the Milli Majlis on 19 December, a bill amending the rules on safeguarding the confidentiality of notarial acts was approved at first reading. The proposed amendments introduce several significant innovations.

• Electronic data exchange

The amendments to the Law on Notaries provide that notaries will be required to transmit electronic information in real time to state authorities about transactions involving certain commercial legal entities. For example, if a share in a limited liability company is sold or transferred by inheritance, the notary must immediately submit these details to the Electronic Government system.

It is noted that previously such information was often transmitted with delays or stored in paper form. The digital integration, it is claimed, will help increase transparency.

• Reporting obligation

Under the draft law, commercial legal entities and branches of foreign companies will be required to submit an annual report by 31 January stating whether any changes have been made to their founding documents.

The report may also be submitted electronically to the relevant authority. The new requirement is intended to ensure that information on companies held in the state register remains up to date.

• Notarial confidentiality and professional reputation

The draft law предусматривает a reassessment of the concept of “notarial confidentiality”. The transfer of information by notaries to electronic systems is to be carried out on the condition that the notarial secrecy regime is preserved.

At present, notaries are required to safeguard commercial secrets that become known to them in the course of their professional duties. However, the integrated transfer of data to state authorities in effect redefines the boundaries of that confidentiality.

Why these measures are being introduced

Official explanations say the changes are intended to bring legislation into line with the law on the state registration of legal entities. In practice, it is noted, companies sometimes formalise share-related transactions through a notary, while the Ministry of Taxes or the Ministry of Justice only learn of these changes with a delay.

It is expected that online integration will strengthen the “one-stop shop” principle and allow the state to monitor commercial changes in real time. Officials stress that this should help reduce the shadow economy and improve tax compliance.

What these changes signal

Taken together, all the amendments described above indicate that the Azerbaijani authorities are moving into a new phase of tightening punitive policy under the guise of protecting public order and traditional values.

Pro-government commentators describe these steps as “preventive measures”. In their view, the rise in cases of damage to cultural heritage, road traffic incidents, tax evasion and “immoral” behaviour online requires a pre-emptive response from lawmakers. However, the political dimension of these processes cannot be ignored.

The authorities emphasise national and moral rhetoric as a way of reinforcing internal legitimacy. Within this logic, issues such as cultural heritage, online morality and road hooliganism are presented as social problems, while at the same time carrying clear political symbolism.

Through such amendments, it is relatively easy to build broad public consensus. The destruction of historical monuments, dangerous driving or “immoral” online behaviour find little support among large segments of society. By bringing these issues to the fore, the state can present stricter laws as a response to public demand and, against the backdrop of more sensitive economic and political issues, strengthen its own legitimacy.

At the same time, these areas symbolise the state’s “protective and regulatory” role. Cultural heritage is framed as the protection of the past, online morality as care for future generations, and road safety as the safeguarding of everyday life. In this way, the authorities position themselves not as a source of prosperity, but as the main actor preventing chaos and ensuring order — one of the classic mechanisms of political legitimacy.

In the sphere of online morality in particular, vague wording risks going beyond the bounds of social regulation and turning into an instrument of control over public expression. Broadly defined concepts such as “disrespect for society” or “contrary to moral values” could potentially be used not only against indecent behaviour, but also against any inconvenient speech.

From this perspective, what is happening cannot be reduced to mere technical regulation. These changes clearly illustrate how the state is shaping its relationship with society and the extent to which it seeks to control behaviour and public expression.