Tag: azerbaijan

On July 14, the parliament of Azerbaijan adopted amendments to the already restrictive Law on Media, tightening state control over information and extending censorship capabilities to digital platforms. One of the most significant changes is the expansion of the term “Media Entity” to include the local offices and representative branches of foreign media organizations. These entities are now required to register both with the State Tax Service and with a newly empowered Media Register. Any operation conducted without both forms of registration is explicitly classified as illegal. The registration process is not merely bureaucratic—it forms the legal basis for the state to shut down foreign media operations at will.

In addition to registration requirements, the amended law introduces naming restrictions for media outlets. The names of media entities and their editorial offices must not be identical or similar to those of other outlets, must not mislead users, and must not contain expressions deemed contrary to public order, morality, or ethics. These vague criteria offer the authorities broad discretion to deny registration or shut down operations on subjective grounds.

Perhaps most troubling is the provision banning the publication and dissemination of “false information.” The law does not define what constitutes “false,” giving the authorities the power to interpret and enforce this standard arbitrarily. In Azerbaijan’s legal environment, where courts often side with the state and media freedom is already tightly constrained, this creates enormous risks for journalists, especially those engaged in critical reporting. Content that challenges official narratives can now be punished not because it is untrue, but because it is unwelcome.

Moreover, the law places significant and arguably unattainable demands on news agencies. In order to qualify for legal operation, agencies must have formal agreements with at least twenty other media outlets and employ journalists accredited in a minimum of five foreign countries. These requirements appear less intended to encourage professionalism than to impose exclusionary thresholds that many independent or critical outlets simply cannot meet.

The Media Development Agency, an entity under close government control, has been granted expansive new powers under the amended legal framework. It now has the authority to take measures against content it deems prohibited, including on online platforms. This effectively formalizes internet censorship. The agency can also request the State Tax Service to dissolve foreign media offices that fail to comply with registration requirements or that are found to be operating without an applicable international agreement. Most notably, this process can now be conducted without following the standard legal procedures for dissolving entities laid out in Articles 59 through 61 of the Civil Code. A similar change has been made to the Law on State Registration and State Register of Legal Entities, which now explicitly states that failure to appear in the Media Register—or removal from it—is a valid ground for dissolution.

Key changes include:

• Expansion of “Media Entity” definition: Now explicitly includes branches and representative offices of foreign media organizations operating in Azerbaijan.

• Registration requirements: Such entities must first register with the State Tax Service (STS) and then apply for inclusion in the Media Register. Operating without both registrations is explicitly prohibited.

• Illegal operation penalties:

  • Media activity without Media Register inclusion is now defined as illegal.

  • Administrative penalties are introduced for the publication or dissemination of print media by entities not listed in the Register.

• Naming regulations: Media outlet names must not:

  • Resemble or imitate existing media names;

  • Contain expressions that contradict public order, morality, or ethics;

  • Mislead users.

• Prohibition on “false information”: The law prohibits the publication and dissemination of false information, but provides no clear definition of what constitutes “falsehood.” This vagueness opens the door to arbitrary enforcement and censorship.

“Critical reporting could be punished not because it’s false — but because it’s inconvenient,” noted one media analyst.

• Operational burdens on news agencies:

  • Must maintain agreements with at least 20 media entities;

  • Employ journalists accredited in at least five foreign countries;

  • Meet minimum content production thresholds.

Critics argue these criteria are unrealistic for most independent or local outlets, and function as gatekeeping tools to limit access to legal operation.

---

Unprecedented Powers for the Media Development Agency

The Media Development Agency, an entity under close government control, now wields broad new powers:

• Can take measures against materials it deems “prohibited”, including online publications;

• Has authority to request that the State Tax Service dissolve foreign media branches and representative offices, without following the dissolution procedures outlined in Articles 59–61 of the Civil Code;

• Can enforce removal from the State Register of Legal Entities for non-compliant foreign media entities.

Additionally, amendments to the Law on State Registration and State Register of Legal Entities make removal from the Media Register or operation outside of international agreements grounds for forced dissolution.

---

What These Changes Mean

• Media freedom under siege: Foreign and local media are subject to restrictive registration, vague censorship provisions, and harsh penalties. Independent journalism, particularly if critical of the government, faces heightened risk.

• Government agencies have unchecked power: The Media Development Agency now acts as a censorship body with legal tools to dismantle non-compliant entities — without judicial oversight.

• Azerbaijan drifts further from international norms: These laws contravene constitutional protections and international obligations under the ECHR and undermine any remaining democratic space.

---