Freedom of Association in Azerbaijan etiketine sahip kayıtlar gösteriliyor. Tüm kayıtları göster
Freedom of Association in Azerbaijan etiketine sahip kayıtlar gösteriliyor. Tüm kayıtları göster

19 Ağustos 2015 Çarşamba

FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: Legal Analysis of NGO legislation

ALAGAR MAMMADLI

Research was carried out with the support of the British Embassy Baku.

BAKU-2015

Regulation of Freedom of Association in the Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan


Article 58 “Freedom of Association” of the Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan adopted in 1995 assures every person’s right to engage in association with others. Hence, the Constitution guarantees this right for physical and legal entities enabling them to freely enjoy this right. 
Clause 2 of this Article emphasizes the broader scope of the freedom of association by stating, “Every person has the right to establish a union, including political parties, trade unions and any other public unions, or to join an already existing union”. This right embraces the establishment of political parties, trade unions and their activities, as well as the establishment of unions of any forms and their functioning, which reinforces its commitment to the right of association.
The Constitution guarantees and emphasizes the free functioning of unions established within the framework of the freedom of association. Article 59 Clause 3 of the Constitution, which states “No one shall be forced to join a union or remain a member in such a union” underlines the voluntary character of the freedom of association by pointing out the inadmissibility of forced membership of individuals in organizations against their will.
Clause 4 of the respective Article of the Constitution has established the boundaries of the freedom of association by proclaiming, “Unions aiming to overthrow the government by force in the entire territory or in any part of the Republic of Azerbaijan shall be prohibited.”
The fact that the legitimate aim set as a ground to restrict the freedom of association in the Constitution is merely limited to “the overthrow of the legal government by force” evidently mirrors the traces of the two coup d’états and one attempt for a coup within the four years from 1991 - when the country gained its independence - until November 1995 – when the Constitution was adopted. By nature, this corroborates solely one of the four distinct principles provided in Article 11 Clause 2 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The last part of Clause 4 states that the termination of an organization’s functioning shall only be subject to a court decision, thus proclaiming the dispossession of such a right by an executive body or any other entities.   
Article 11 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms that Azerbaijan ratified in 2001 guarantees the freedom of association. According to this Article:
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.
While the first part of this Article defines freedom of association, the second part sets the grounds and conditions under which this right may be subject to restrictions.
The most serious challenge in exercising the freedom of association consists in the legal grounds that, at times, are justified and defended as legitimate restrictions to impede freedoms. In the meantime, the practices of formal institutions that are based upon restrictions lead to the elimination of the freedom.
Article 11 of the Convention sets forth a limited number of cases that can justify restrictions to be placed by States on this freedom. Such cases shall be deemed limited due to their concreteness and that they cannot be expanded upon through interpretation. This comes from a reason that Azerbaijan, as a member State that became a Party to the Convention and must put in an application the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights, is obliged to correctly apply this practice both through the bodies implementing the legislative functions and the executive entities practicing the international legal rules. In short, Azerbaijan, like other States that joined this Convention, must not impose any restrictions on the exercise of this right other than those prescribed by this Convention, nor can it expand on these restrictions.  Azerbaijan has assumed this as an obligation.
The restrictions pertaining to the freedom of association can only be drawn from Article 11 Clause 2 of the Convention, which are:
  • in the interests of national security or public safety;
  • for the prevention of disorder or crime;
  • for the protection of health or morals;
  • for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Article 11 Clause 2 of the Convention indicates to member States the category of professions that may be restricted from exercising their freedom of association by stating, “This article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State”. The logic standing behind this is that persons employed by armed forces, the police and the State administration offices are in charge of the activities of the State bodies, and the assumption that the association of persons belonging to the aforementioned category of professions may be in conflict with the functions of public offices and State security. 
Imposition of any restrictions other than those mentioned above shall not be feasible. For instance, it is inadmissible to build up a “lawful reason” for any restriction of the freedom of association based upon such grounds as workload of public offices and lack of sufficient sources and without substantiating such restrictions with those prescribed by Article 11 Clause 2 of the Convention. In doing so, Article 11 of the Convention has defined a clear framework not permitting any additional restrictions. 
No other legitimate aim is provided that can be deemed lawful to place a restriction on the freedom of association in Article 58 of the Constitution adopted in 1995.
The difference of the Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan from the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms does not only lie in the limited number of grounds for restriction of this freedom. Additionally, while Article 11 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms expresses the freedom of association and freedom of assembly collectively, Azerbaijan’s Constitution regulates these two rights in two distinct Articles. Respectively, Article 58 protects the freedom of association and Article 49 guarantees the freedom of assembly. 
No issues would presumably be raised if the provision of the Constitution that regulates the freedom of association was enacted in laws in this form and collectively reflected both the right to association based on similar grounds and the measures for implementation embedded in laws.   
However, the Constitutional Law that is not reflected in the text of the 1995 Constitution but was subsequently granted the legal power equaling to that of the Constitution is deemed one of the first documents challenging the exercise of the freedom of association. In effect, there is a clearly articulated expression in the provisions of Article 71 of the Constitution guaranteeing human rights and freedoms:To observe and to protect rights and liberties of a human being and a citizen specified in the Constitution is responsibility of bodies of legislative, executive and legal power”. By the same token, this Article articulately states that no one shall be able to impose any restriction on the exercise of rights and freedoms of a human being and a citizen. The existence of such provisions is due to the absence of ability of the three branches of government, precisely of the legislative body to create laws based upon its preferred political views and the inflexibility refraining it from establishing a narrower framework rather than the one identified in the Constitution. In spite of the presence of the articulated provisions, the legislative body adopted other provisions placing new restrictions on the exercise of rights and freedoms of a human being and a citizen.     
Article 71 of the Constitution does not only present a restriction that can be imposed on the freedom of association prescribed under Article 58 but it also provides grounds enshrined in the Constitution permitting restrictions on human rights and freedoms in general. Such a ground has been established as follows: announcement of war, martial law and state of emergency, and mobilization”. These grounds can be applied in view of a condition emphasized in the respective Article of the Constitution stating “…can be partially and temporarily restricted in consideration of the international obligations of the Republic of Azerbaijan”. Accordingly, such restrictions can only be maintained temporarily and in view of the international obligations of the country even in the presence of a case “announcement of war, martial law and state of emergency, and mobilization”. The obligations adopted during the accession to the Council of Europe and the international legal norms ratified and incorporated into domestic laws must be respected.     
Until the August 2002 Referendum, which endorsed the adoption of amendments to the Constitution, the word “only” would be used in identifying this condition, thus making it clear that the rights and freedoms assured by the Constitution would not be subject to any restrictions under different grounds and terms in peaceful times.
On 24 December 2002, the Constitutional Law on Regulation of the Exercise of Human Rights and Freedoms in the Republic of Azerbaijan was adopted, which set forth new requirements for the imposition of restrictions on human rights and freedoms. However, the main text of the Constitution voted by the people in Referendum in 1995 had not prescribed these requirements. 
According to Article 3.6 of the Constitutional Law, the rights and freedoms provided in the Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan can be restricted based upon the grounds set forth in the Law that are mentioned below in addition to those prescribed by the Constitution:
·         in the interest of state security;
·         for the protection of health or morals;
·         for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others;
·         for the prevention of crime;
·         for the prevention of disorder;
·         for the protection of public safety;

According to Article 3.1 of the Constitutional Law, the freedom of association along with the rights and freedoms provided in the Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan and in the international agreements that Azerbaijan has joined can only be restricted by law. While regulating the freedom of association, this provision guarantees that other government branches outside of the legislative body do not establish and apply unlawful grounds.
One of the requirements of Article 3.3 of the Constitutional Law prohibits any restrictions on human rights and freedoms that may change the nature of those rights and freedoms. This is one of the key conditions protecting the nature of all human rights and freedoms, including the freedom of association.
One of other guarantees for human rights and freedoms are provided in Article 3.4 of the Constitutional Law. Any restrictions imposed on the rights and freedoms of human beings must be in line with the legal aim established in the Constitution and the Constitutional Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan and be proportionate to this legal aim. 
At first glance, the regulatory measures in the Constitution and the Constitutional Law that enjoys equal legal force with the former look normal. Therefore, the application of such measures in the domestic legislation can be justified allegedly for alignment with the international regulations.  Nevertheless, in the light of a careful comparative review, various contradictions appear that yield challenges in practice stemming from such “minor differences”.  
Article 11 Clause 1 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms assures everyone’s right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. Clause of the said Article provides lawful grounds for the imposition of restrictions on the freedom of association. These grounds are: in the interests of national security or public safety, prevention of disorder or crime, protection of health or morals or protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Accordingly, the lawful grounds envisaged for the restriction of the freedom of association are virtually similar both in the Convention and the Constitutional Law. The only difference is that while the Convention states “in the interests of national security”, the Constitutional Law, instead, prescribes “the interests of state security” as restrictive measures.   
Another condition “prescribed by law” is set both in the Convention and the Constitutional Law as a requirement. Any restrictions shall be imposed on the freedom of association solely by law.
After a comparative review of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms with the Constitutional Law on Regulation of the Exercise of Human Rights and Freedoms of the Republic of Azerbaijan, we come up with “minor differences” as mentioned above, and one of such differences is the Convention’s required condition “necessary in a democratic society”, which is, by nature, is crucial to the exercise of rights and freedoms. Under the Convention, even in the presence of grounds restricting the freedom of association, such restrictions shall be deemed illegitimate unless they are not “necessary in a democratic society”. To put it in an example: there are all sorts of goods in the storage, and the selection of the goods is flexible. However, one of the keys unlocking the storage is “necessary in a democratic society”. Unless you have this key, you won’t be able to pick up the goods
While the legitimate grounds established in the Constitutional Law on Regulation of the Exercise of Human Rights and Freedoms in the Republic of Azerbaijan are adequate with those prescribed in the Convention, the absence of a requirement including the test of “necessary in a democratic society” throughout the application of restrictions can be characterized as one of the serious problems in this frame.


Freedom of Association in International Documents
The documents of the United Nations
Article 20 of the 1948 UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights includes the freedom of association. It states, Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. No one may be compelled to belong to an association. Not only does this Article recognize the freedom of association, but it also assures that no one would be forced to become a member of an organization. The Article also enumerates lawful grounds that can be applied in imposing restrictions on this right. This right can be restricted for the purpose of the protection of state security, protection of public order and public safety, protection of public health and moral, or protection of the rights and freedoms of other individuals but to a degree necessary in a democratic society. It deems it inadmissible to impose any other restrictions that do fall within this frame. Article 23 Clause 4 protects the right to form unions in a separate provision: Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.”

Article 22 Clause 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights adopted with the UN Resolution on 16 December 1966 stipulates: Everyone shall have the right to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of his interests.” This Articles provides a broader scope of the freedom of association and identifies the forms of exercise of association freedom, also including trade unions. Clause 2 of this Article contains the conditions and lawful grounds enabling the imposition of restrictions on this right. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those which are prescribed by law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. The last part of Clause 2 of the respective Article proclaims that this Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on members of the armed forces and of the police in their exercise of this right. This document, as well, permits restrictions on the exercise of this right by members of armed forces, the police or public officials.

Article 7 of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women adopted on 18 December 1979 sets obligations on States that joined the Convention, stating that States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the political and public life of the country and, in particular, shall ensure to women, on equal terms with men, the right.
Article 15 of the 20 November 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child assures children’s right to a peaceful association. Similar to the aforementioned UN documents, imposition of restrictions on this right shall be admissible it is prescribed by law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. No restriction may be placed on this right with other grounds.
According to Article 15 of the 28 July 1951 UN Refugee Convention, the Contracting States shall accord to refugees lawfully staying in their territory the most favourable treatment as regards non-political and non-profit-making associations and trade unions, accorded to nationals of a foreign country, in the same circumstances.
Freedom of Association in Regional Documents
The 2 May 1948 American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man captures the freedom of association in Article 22. The Article states, “Every person has the right to associate with others to promote, exercise and protect his legitimate interests of a political, economic, religious, social, cultural, professional, labor union or other nature.” As the nature of this Article reveals, the concept of the freedom of association maintains its classical understanding and it is described in a broader scope. The Article embraces both political association and trade union association in addition to other types of association.

According to Article 11 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms adopted on 4 November 1950, entered in force on 15 April 2002 and ratified by the Republic of Azerbaijan on 15 April 2002 being incorporated into the domestic laws, “Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.” While this Article does not provide for a blatant right of association with political organizations, however, this concept is conceived of as association for political purposes in member States’ practices. The second part of the Article enumerates the grounds and conditions set for the restriction of the right of association. Thus such grounds and conditions must be prescribed by law and be necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Article 10 Clause 1 of the 29 June 1981 African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights assures the freedom of association, Every individual shall have the right to free association provided that he abides by the law.

The 21 November 1990 Paris Charter for a New Europe of the Conference for Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) contains a chapter titled Human Rights, Democracy and Rule of Law, stating that everyone has the right to association. Under the same title, the Charter also reaffirms everyone’s right to enjoy social rights. The Charter’s section on Non-Governmental Organizations recalls the major role that non-governmental organizations, religious and other groups and individuals have played in the achievement of the objectives of the CSCE.
Article 12 of the 13 October 2000 EU Convention on Constitutional Rights assures everyone’s right to freedom of association, thus making it an obligatory document for the European Union countries. 


Criteria for Restriction of Freedom of Association in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights
The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) have identified the most important and functional framework for the research of restrictions imposed on the freedom of association of civil society.
A review of Article 151 of the Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan reveals that the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms supersedes the domestic laws and has direct force. The European Court of Human Rights decisions cause the re-review and correction of domestic court rulings by virtue of civil and public law claims. Thus, the superseding force of the Convention is acknowledged without any questioning. As mentioned below, the European Court of Human Rights, in line with the European Convention on Human Rights, has established precise criteria and conditions under which the freedom of association may be restricted. The country’s legislative and executive bodies must consider these criteria, and both the legal framework and the legal practice must be developed under these criteria. 
It is necessary that the precise scope determined within the framework of the European Convention on Human Rights and with the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights is taken as essential in examining this right. 
Article 11 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms guarantees the freedom of association. According to this Article:
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.
While the first part of this Article defines freedom of association, the second part sets the grounds and conditions under which this right may be subject to restrictions. The most serious challenge in exercising the freedom of association consists in the legal grounds that, at times, are justified and defended as legitimate restrictions to impede freedoms. In the meantime, the practices of formal institutions that are based upon restrictions lead to the elimination of the freedom.
Article 11 of the Convention sets forth a limited number of cases that can justify restrictions to be placed by States on this freedom. Such cases shall be deemed limited due to their concreteness and that they cannot be expanded upon through interpretation. This comes from a reason that Azerbaijan, as a member State that became a Party to the Convention and must put in an application the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights, is obliged to correctly apply this practice both through the bodies implementing the legislative functions and the executive entities practicing the international legal rules. In short, Azerbaijan, like other States that joined this Convention, must not impose any restrictions on the exercise of this right other than those prescribed by this Convention, nor can it expand on these restrictions.  Azerbaijan has assumed this as an obligation.
The restrictions pertaining to the freedom of association can only be drawn from Article 11 Clause 2 of the Convention, which are:
  • in the interests of national security or public safety;
  • for the prevention of disorder or crime;
  • for the protection of health or morals;
  • for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Imposition of any restrictions other than those mentioned above shall not be feasible. For instance, it is inadmissible to build up a “lawful reason” for any restriction of the freedom of association based upon such grounds as workload of public offices and lack of sufficient sources and without substantiating such restrictions with those prescribed by Article 11 Clause 2 of the Convention. In doing so, Article 11 of the Convention has defined a clear framework not permitting any additional restrictions. 
The European Court of Human Rights applies the following tests in determining whether the State appealed against has breached the Convention in admitting the cases in question:
1) Is it possible to apply Article 11 to a case appealed?
2) Has there been a case of interference based on Article 1?
If the case in question appealed to the European Court of Human Rights is concluded to have passed the two testing questions, then the interference registered is reviewed whether:
a)      it is a restriction that may be deemed lawful prescribed by law; 
b)     it pursues a legitimate aim;
c)      it is necessary in a democratic society;
In the meanwhile, the following tests are also applied:
- whether this stems from a pressing social need:
- whether the restriction imposed is proportionate to the legitimate aim;

Interference
The freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association protected under the Convention may only be restricted in conformity with the ground and conditions set in paragraph 2 of the said Article. If any restriction placed on the freedom of association is not in line with paragraph 2 of the Article, then Article 11 of the Convention will be deemed to have been breached. However, it is important to expose the presence of a restriction on the freedom of association, prior to establishing whether the restriction in question is in conformity with Article 11, paragraph 2 of the Convention. In general, it is not an intricate task to find out a restriction. Any action or operation restricting the structure or functioning of an organization cannot be acknowledged as a restriction. Here the fundamental principle based upon human rights and freedoms is taken as key. Freedom is paramount and restriction is only an exception. Every step restricting the freedom constitutes interference.  

Prescribed by Law
ECtHR, after revealing interference with the freedom of association, assesses whether this interference has lawful grounds. Being prescribed by law means whether domestic law can justify the interference in question. Nevertheless, it is impossible to consider the presence of a mere lawful ground as satisfactory.  The European Court of Human Rights, by virtue of its case law, has expressed the necessity of certain features that the legal means justifying interference must possess. 
As the European Court of Human Rights also expresses in the case of Rekvényi v. Hungary, the expression “prescribed by law” does not only identify whether the measure taken is in conformity with a certain domestic law, but it also necessitates the accessibility of the legal rules to related persons and the formality of non-conformity results in line with the said rules.
This means that the law in question will be accessible and coherent; persons will be aware of the existence of such a norm (e.g., as a published text) and the rules explaining this law will be clearly comprehended, through the assistance of a lawyer if needed. In case the legislation restricting the freedom of association does not possess the features mentioned, the restriction shall be not be deemed as prescribed by law and indirectly, will be considered to have breached Article 11 of the Convention.   

Legitimate Aim
Having established that the interference is, indeed, prescribed by law, the European Court of Human Rights tries to find out whether the interference pursues one of the legitimate aims expressed in Article 11, paragraph 2 of the Convention. As mentioned above, Article 11, paragraph 2 provides a limited number of legitimate aims justifying a restriction. It means that the number of such aims cannot be increased, and they cannot be supplemented by new ones. 
It should be emphasized that in case the European Court of Human Rights exposes the fact of non-conformity with one of the legitimate aims in reviewing a case, it automatically leads to a Court’s conclusion that the interference is not in line with Article 11 of the Convention. 
If, however, the interference does rest on one of the legitimate aims, then the European Court of Human Rights will apply a principle of “appropriateness” or “proportionality” or another expression “adequacy” in order to assess whether there is a balance between the legitimate aim pursued and the restriction imposed. 

Necessary in a Democratic Society
After the European Court of Human Rights confirms that the restriction imposed on the freedom of association pursues one of the legitimate aims provided in Article 11, paragraph 2 of the Convention, it steps into assessing whether the restriction imposed is necessary in a democratic society. The Court defines this condition as follows: “”The only need permitting the imposition of a restriction on one of these rights shall only be to a condition that it is necessary in a democratic society”
The expression “Necessary in a democratic society” hints at two conditions:
a) existence of a serious and pressing social needs; and
b) the restriction must be proportionate to the legitimate aim in question.

Pressing Social Needs
In accordance with the European Court of Human Rights case-law, the word “necessary” implies a pressing social need. In other word, the restriction places on the freedom of association will comply with a “pressing social need” in view of one or many aims identified in paragraph 2. In this case, the Government wins owing to a need factor.
In assessing whether the State that is a party to the Convention has gone beyond the extent of pressing social need, the proportionality of the restriction imposed on the rights and freedoms to the aim pursued is assumed as a key criterion. 
When the Governments assess the restrictions imposed, it may turn out that the testing against the principles of legitimate aim and lawfulness may not produce any difficulty, while the review of the presence of a condition “necessary in a democratic society” in sifting through the proportionality balance necessitates a more comprehensive assessment.  While assessing necessity in a democratic society, the ECtHR draws its conclusion by putting into practice the principles of pressing social need, “appropriate, convincing and satisfactory reasons” proving this need, adequacy of a restriction measure, balance between individual and common benefit and selection criteria.  
The research indicates that sound cornerstones are necessary for any restriction imposed on the freedom of association to be deemed lawful. In short, while a restriction imposed on the freedom of association may fall within the framework of legislation, it will be acknowledged to have breached the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms unless it is in conformity with the aforementioned criteria.  





Freedom of Association
The Legal Basis of the Freedom of Association in Public Associations in Azerbaijan
The freedom of association is guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan and several laws have been adopted in this frame. The right to engage in association with organizations is regulated by the Law on Political Parties. The right to establish and join trade unions, which is deemed as one of the fundamental rights, is regulated by the Law on Trade Unions. Established as non-governmental organizations and carrying non-profit and non-commercial functions, the functioning of religious associations is regulated by the Law on Freedom of Religion and Beliefs. Additionally, the Law on State Registration of Legal Entities and State Registry embraces registration procedures, including the state registration of all legal entities and the state registration of legal entities involving the regulation of state registry issues. 

Establishment of non-profit organizations, as well as the types, participants, members, assistants, branches and representations, registration and termination of non-profit organizations within the framework of the freedom of association
On 13 June 2000, the legislative body adopted the Law on NGOs (public associations and foundations) of the Republic of Azerbaijan, which significantly restricted the scope of work of non-governmental organizations in Azerbaijan, thus narrowing the range of appeal of Article 58, Clause 2 of the Constitution, stating, “Every person has the right to establish a union, including political parties, trade unions and any other public unions, or to join an already existing union. The free functioning of all unions shall be assured.” When it was first adopted, Article 1.2 of the Law would not apply to all non-governmental organizations and its scope was only limited to public associations and foundations by proclaiming that, “The definition of "non-governmental organization" shall embrace public unions and foundations”.  However, the scope of this Article with the amendments adopted on 17 December 2013 became broader. Accordingly, the Law embraced the matters related to the establishment and operation of branches and representations of foreign non-governmental organizations. Yet, the limited scope of appeal of the Law did not change.n

We come across one of the first restrictions imposed by the Law that is reflected in the definitions provided in Article 2 of the respective law. Paragraph 4 of this Article declares, “Non-governmental organizations shall not be able to provide financial and any other material support to … political parties.” In practice, if a public association established to promote democratic and legal values delivers free-of-charge training to the young of a political party, teaches them how to use information technologies or train them on new media, such activities are deemed assistance with a financial value. This implies that NGOs are prohibited by law to engage in such activities.  However, it becomes implausible to explain the legitimate aim which is taken as a basis for the restrictions permitted by the law. It is due to the fact that neither Article 58 and Article 71 of Azerbaijan’s Constitution enumerating permissible grounds for restriction of human rights and freedoms, nor Article 3 of Azerbaijan’s 2002 Constitutional Law establishing additional grounds such restrictions and Article 11 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ratified by Azerbaijan in 2002 that provides grounds for placing restrictions on the freedom of association justify such restrictions. 
An aspect drawing attention in Article 2, paragraph 4 pertains to the types of activities NGOs may engage in. “In line with the Electoral Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan, non-governmental organizations shall be able to observe, and conduct exit-polls during, presidential, parliamentary and municipal elections held in Azerbaijan.” The description of this Article makes clear that non-governmental organizations can neither become observers nor conduct exitpolls during a Referendum realizing an important amendment to the Constitution due to the fact that Referendum is not enumerated along with other elections.  
In effect, the free nature of the freedom of association should be expressed, the limited number of exceptional restrictions that may be imposed on this right should be provided, and the lawful grounds permitting such restrictions should be established and it should be eloquently stated that these restrictions shall be imposed in case they are necessary in a democratic society. The fact that the kinds of activities NGOs may engage in are enumerated in the law and other activities that are not mentioned in the law imply their inadmissibility by law is not logical and contradicts the prevailing legal norms regulating human rights and freedoms.

The first sentence of Article 3.1 of the Law on Non-Governmental Organizations of the Republic of Azerbaijan (public associations and foundations) imperatively states, “A non-governmental organization shall have a name indicating its organizational-legal form and the characteristics of its activities.” An artificial impediment standing in the way of the exercise of the freedom of association as a “lawful requirement” significantly impairs the existence of the freedom of association.  The absence of words “describing the character of the activity” is ultimately assessed as violation of the law, which may lead to the dismissal of a state registration. Thus, this case can pose a restriction to the right of those to engage in association for any purpose in the exercise of the freedom of association.
According to an amendment made to Article 3.1 on 30 June 2009, a new provision was added stating that “The titles of state bodies of the Republic of Azerbaijan, as well as the names of Azerbaijani eminent persons (without permission of their next-of-kins and heirs) shall not be used in the names of non-governmental organizations.” Legislating this provision and imposing a restriction on the freedom of association as an imperative norm are in direct conflict with the prevalent legal norms mentioned above. E.g., the law hereby prohibits persons intending to establish a literature non-governmental organization for the purpose of researching and promoting the works of Nizami Ganjavi and use a name “describing the character of the activity”.  By law, such persons will need to secure “the permission of next-of-kins and/or heirs”, which is impossible. Additionally, there is no list of names of Azerbaijan’s eminent persons authenticated with any normative act that would allow those intending to establish an NGO to refer to this list for obtaining approval from heirs in identifying names for their NGOs. In another example, a group intending to establish an organization aimed to monitor the transparency of the Tele-radio Council Licences shall not be permitted by law. Hence, unlawful and unconstitutional restrictions are imposed on the freedom of association.
The amendments adopted in 2013 and 2014 presented serious restrictive provisions in this direction. The No.1082-IVQD amendments made to the Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Non-Governmental Organizations (public associations and foundations) on 17 October 2014 introduced four restrictive changes to the Law. Ten months prior to this – on 17 December 2013, 22 distinct amendments were enacted to the No.849-IVQD Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Non-Governmental Organizations (public associations and foundations). 
This legislative initiative has made the most amendments since 2000 when the law was adopted. The logic behind these amendments is to narrow the bounds of the freedom of association, take over the functioning of this sector under the government control,  either completely terminate or minimize the work of NGOs that are funded through independent sources and carry out a watchdog function. In order elaborate on the nature of each amendment, it is necessary to discuss whether these amendments are in conformity with law and whether such legal changes constitute any legitimacy.
1.      Since the first day of its adoption, the aim of this law has not been to regulate the overall activities of non-profit organizations but to regulate the restrictive framework of it. However, with the 17 December 2013 amendments this framework was broadened and issues related to the establishment and functioning of the branches and representations of foreign NGOs were also included in the scope of this law. Thus, the Azerbaijan Republic Humanitarian Assistance Commission, which was previously in charge of coordinating the work of the branches and representation of foregin NGOs, has been distanced with the new amendments to the Law.  In addition, the relationships and the activities of international humanitarian organizations that are regulated through intergovernmental agreements were diminished to the same level (even lower lever) with local NGOs. 
2.      The amendment made to Article 1.4 of the Law substituted the word “non-governmental” that used to exist in the prior version with the word “non-profit”. Accordingly, stating that “This Law shall not apply to political parties, trade unions, religious associations, local governance bodies, as well as the entities established to fulfil the functions relevant to these structures and other non-profit organizations regulated by other laws”implicates the existence of other forms of non-proffit organizations. In effect, there is no other Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan regulating the activities of non-profit organizations in the country. In 2010, the first reading of the draft Law on Creative Unions and Persons was introduced to the discussion of the Parliament. Nevertheless, this draft law was not adopted. As such, this amendment is not a norm holding any practical legal importance and does not have a sphere of regulation. In the meantime, there are a number of non-profit organizations that have not been formed as non-governmental organizations but are professional unions remaining from the Soviet period. Many of these unions are still funded from the State budget, while their legal status is unclear in relation to their exposure to the legislation they must be subject to. Amongst them are Writers Union, Cinemotography Union, Artists Union, etc.
3.      Another amendment made to the law affects Article 2.2 Clause 2.2-1. The Clause in question expounds the definition of branches and representaitons of foreign countries’ NGOs and makes a reference to the Civil Code. Article 53.3 of the Civil Code regulates this concept. According to this Article, “Representations and branches are not legal entities and act in line with the statutes approved by a legal entity. The chairmen of representations and branches are appointed by a legal entity and acts based upon the power of attorney issued by this legal entity. The deputy chairmen of the branches and representations of organizations whose founders are foreigners or foreign legal entities shall be citizens of the Republic of Azerbaijan.” The recent amendment made to Article 53 Clause 3 of the Civil Code was also added to the Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan dated 12 February 2010 No. 952-IIIQD. This norm, per se, is controversial and we will explain it below. 
4.      The amendment made to Article 2.3 of the Law added a sentence which broadened the scope of the already existing restriction. The prior text of the provision which stated “A non-governmental organization may be established and start functioning for the purposes not prohibited by the Constitution and laws of the Republic of Azerbaijan” provided a clear and coherent norm. A wider window of opportunities would be exposed to the activities not prohibited by the Constitution. With the subsequently added sentence, “The establishment  and functioning of non-governmental organizations, as well as the branches and representative offices of foreign countries’ non-governmental organizations in the Republic of Azerbaijan that are aimed at forcibly altering the country’s constitutional order and secular character, violating its territorial integrity, promoting warfare, violence and brutality, inciting racial, national and religious hatred shall not be allowed” enumerates restrictions and substitutes the positive expression in the prior version “…may function” with a negative expression “…the functioning shall not be allowed”.  The enumerated factors were indeed inadmissible due to the fact that these aims “prohibited by the Constitution and laws of the Republic of Azerbaijan”.Nontheless, the negative expression of it exposes the overall aim and direction of the Law. The aim pursued through these amendments lie in narrowing the possibility for functioning as much as possible and finally, to bring about prohibitive measures.
5.      The word “any” in the sentence provided in Article 4 “Non-governmental organizations mayt be established in any legal-organiational form” has been edited and replaced with “in a legal-organizational form established by this Law”, thus restricting the free choice of legal-organizational form to the one prescribed by the Law. Accordingly, any legal-organizational form of establishment has been put into a restrictive frame.
6.      Clause 1 was added to Article 7.1 of the Law. Amended Article 7.1-1. “A branch or a representative office may be established by by a non-governmental organizaion of foreign countries in the territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan” – is a directly restrictive norm. Every restriction in law must be justified by a legitimate aim and this must be necessary in a democratic society. The restriction imposed through this amendment cannot be supported by a lawful ground and cannot be justified accordingly. In addition, paragraph 7.1 of the said Article stipulates that “A state registered non-governmental organization may open its branch and representative office within Azerbaijan and abroad”, authorizing Azerbaijan-based organizations to open branches and representations in countries other than Azerbaijan. In this case, it becomes legally unclear why a local organization is granted such a right while a foreign NGO faces a number of restrictions in opening its branches and representative offices in Azerbaijan.  Article 58 paragraph 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan guarantees the freedom of association and uses an expression “any person” without being subject to any kind of discrimination. Accordingly, it does not distinguish between a citizen and a non-citizen; nor a legal entity is differentiated for being a local or non-local. Likewise, Article 58 paragraph 2 deems it inadmissible to discriminate unions by stating, “The free functioning of all unions is assured”. To this end, this amendment comes out in a direct conflict with Article 58 of the Constitution. In the meanwhile, we find out that everyone is equal before the law having viewed the nature of Article 25 of the Constitution. Here everyone implies the equality of physical and legal entities under the law. This norm makes it unfeasible the application of a distinct legal regulation under the legislation. 
7.      The nature of Article 7.4 of the Law on NGOs has been aimed to impose a restriction, which does not serve for legitimate legal interests. In the previous regulation, the statement “A branch and representative office is not a legal entity; it enjoys the assests of the organization establishing it, and it “acts in accordance with the Statute” approved on its behalf” was replaced with “it acts in accordance with the acitivity directions and objectives set out in the Statute””. Hence, the general scope of activity was narrowed down and limited to a few number of expressions enumerated. At this point, the goal is to ensure that NGOs work within a restrictive fraework and stick to the activity directions provided in their foundation documents. In practice, NGOs, while applying for state registration, have to enumerate a few activities in their charters and statutues instead of enjoying a broader range of opportunities for activities. As a consequence, the path of the civil society to a broader scope of operation is blocked. 
8.      In addition the aforementioned amendments, Article 7.4.-1 was also added to the Law, which was mostly aimed at strengthening the control mechanism over the legisltion. The amendments stipulate to include in the statute of a branch or a representative office of a non-governmental organization the following information: state registration data (registration date; number; legal address; the entity registered by); legal address of a branch or a representative office, rules for its management, management authorities, and rules for revocation. One more amendment was added to the 2009 amendment, thus proclaiming, Deputy chairmen of non-governmental organizations and the branches and representative offices established by foreign citizens or those without citizenship, as well as by foreign entities shall be Azerbaijani citizens, while also stating that their term of authority must be precisely indicated. This norm is a blatent example discriminating the subjects of the freedom of association and contradicts Article 58 paragraph 2 of the Constituion stating, “The free functioning of all unions is ensured”. The obligation that the deputy chairmen of any branch or a representative office, or an organization established in the country by a non-citizen must be an Azerbaijani citizen makes it impossible for those organizations to adopt decisions based on a quality criterion. Furthermore, it gainsays everyone’s right to equality. The rights of those without citizenships or with foreign citizenships get restricted under the law, while such a restriction does not have any legitimate ground and is not in conformity with the grounds provided in Article 11 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. That fact that it also provides the duration of authority,  per se, contraverts the norms of the legislation.  As such, there are norms indicating duration of authority in the statutes of non-governmental organizations with regard to their internal functions.  The state entity for registration acknowledges and maintains one copy of the statute of an organization. Thus, the term of expiration of charing functions and elected figures of the registered organizations is a known fact. The term of one person holding authority may vary based upon the effectiveness of his performance. While a person can be held in a position longer due to his excellent performance, another person can be dimissed earlier as that person fails to cope with the accountabilities he was assigned. The application of such a norm under the law prevents the free functioning of organizations and contradicts Article 58 of the Constitution. 
9.      By the amendment made to the Law on 30 June 2009, Article 9.1-1 was added which proclaimed, “A foregners and a non-citizen holding permanent residence in the Republic of Azerbaijan may be a founder of a non-governmental organization”. This norm would apply to founders and legal representatives of representative offices would be able to fulfil this function without permanent residence. Some international organizations would assign one person as a legal representative to more than one neighbour country, thus economizing expenditures. E.g., one person would be assigned to two countries of the three South Caucasus states as a legal representative. A person based in Tbilisi would be in charge of the representative offices both in Georgia and Azerbaijan. However, with the 17 December 2013 changes that added “legal representative” to the Law brought in a condition of permanent residency that was imposed not only on the founders but also the legal representatives. This norm, too, aimed to impose restrictions on the activities of international organizations in Azerbaijan. It also becomes implausible to justify such restrictions in terms of a legitimate interest.
10.  The 17 December 2013 amendments added Article 10.5 to the Law, which states: “The executive bodies of non-governmental organizations shall not violate the rights of its members. Any dispute arising between the organization and its members shall be resolved through a court. If, through a court consideration, established that the rights of an organization’s members have been breached, the operation of that organization shall be stalled for a certain period of time under Article of 31.3 of the Law”.  A practical “necessity” for insertion of this Article in the Law is turn it into a mechanism for public officials to manage to terminate the operations of organizations by instigating internal conflicts when they are “not pleased” with the activities of those organizations. Legally, there must be a number of lawful grounds for repealing the operation of an organization, including an activity aiming to change the constitutional order of the country or one of the restrictions provided in Article 11 of the Convention. Nontheless, we notice here that the breach of an individual’s right is not concluded with the reinstatement or compensation of that person’s right.  This, however, is resulted in the termination of an organization’s activity for a year. Given the fact that dozens of people are employed by a large NGO, and these people receive salaries, the termination of an organization’s operation leads to the violation of labour rights of those getting wages at this organization. Instead of reinstating the rights of those employees and providing compensations, the legislation makes others unemployed as well and terminates its operation. This is not a legal regulation method and does not rest on any legitimate legal ground. Overall, it is a restrictive norm calculated to terminate the operation of an organization, which contradicts the law.
11.  The article titled Assistants of Non-Governmental Organizations is, in effect, controversial in terms of its expression. The regulation prescribed in this provision is targeted against legal entities, but eventually states to involve physical entities, too. Let’s pay attention to the structure of the expressed statement, which contains an unclear sentence structure: “A non-governmental organization’s assistants involve physical and legal persons (excluding government and local government entities) engaged in its activities, and those providing assistance and various services in line with its Statute” The statement of the legislator through this expression is unclear. In the meantime, the expression “…engaged in its activities in line with the Statute” may obviously apply only those who act in line with the Statute. Considering that physical entities and individuals may get involved in an organization as volunteers, the Statute in question becomes uncertain in relationship to the subjects, thus indicating that this norm will be regulated rightly. The last sentence of the Article stating, “The existence of assistants and their legal status are established through the foundation documents of a non-governmental organization and in conformity with “The Law on Voluntary Activity of the Republic of Azerbaijan”” also aims to place a restriction on non-governmental activities similar to other norms. In fact, this expression would be more logical if it was concluded with the expression at the end of the sentence.  Looking for the existence of volunteers and the source of their legal status in the foundation documents of a non-governmental organization is similar to searching something that does not exist at all. It is not required to include a separate norm in the foundation documents that mentions a voluntary activity, and voluntarism only reflects the will of founders in the documents of many organizations. It means that founders aim to engage in association by joining together voluntarily. The nature of Article 11 does not consist in voluntarism of the founders, but in the voluntary association of an organization’s members, who are not part of the founding board and joined the organization at a later stage.  In this case, it is normal that no such provision will be included in the foundation document of an organization. This, in turn, will become an impeding norm preventing from involving volunteers in activities. It is due to the fact that Article 11 refers to the Law on Voluntary Activity and the Law on NGOs in conjunction. Indeed, the more articulate sentence of this norm should have sufficed following the adoption of the 2009 Law on Voluntary Activity of the Republic of Azerbaijan.
12.  One of the 17 December 2013 amendments made consists in the last sentence added to Article 12.3. This norm had not existed in the Law until 2009.  The addition of this norm in the legislation in 2009, and the subsequent renewal of this norm with a sentence in this content contradict the freedom of association, norms of the existing legislation and the Constitution. Until 2009, the registration of a branch or a representative office of a foreign non-governmental organization would be realized through simple procedures and at the level relevant to local entities with an exclusion of some technical documentation. With the 30 June 2009 amendment Article 12.3 was added to the Law, which stipulated that the state registration of a branch or a representative office of a foreign non-governmental organization might be realized through an agreement signed with it.  In doing this, the legal process was tied to a political decision-making. Unless there was a political agreement, the state registration of a branch or a representative office of a foreign non-governmental organization became impossible. On 17 December 2013, this norm was tightened more and was decided to impose a term condition on the political agreement. This, in itself, contributes to the deepening of another legal problem. NGOs and representative offices, following their state registrations, may be suspended with the choice of their founding board or through a court decision. Accordingly, a state registration does not have a term and its revocation shall only be possible in the presence of a lawful repeal. The last sentence added to Article 12.3 eliminates the understanding of an unlimited duration, thus limiting the duration of the permission characterized as “political permission” to the duration of state registration. Thus, the political opinion overshadows the legal process.
13.  One of the amendments was made to Article 13.1 on 17 December 2013. This Article enumerates aspects necessary to include in the statutes of non-governmental organizations. The amendment introduced an expression stating, “established for a permanent and/or concrete purpose”, which set out a necessity to significantly narrow the scope of founding goal for an organization. Hence, the opportunities of NGOs that form their entire operation with grants were minimized. A grant-seeking initiative for an activity that is not included in the founding documents of an organization will consequently not supported. Organizations that attempt to do so will be sued to have violated the rules for not complying by their goals and objectives. As a result, NGOs will face the revocation of their registration and other types of sanctions. 
Registration of NGOs
In accordance with Article 16 of the Law on Non-Governmental Organizations (public associations and foundations) of the Republic of Azerbaijan, the state registration of non-governmental organizations is carried out by the Ministry of Justice in capacity of an executive body in line with the legislation of Azerbaijan on registration of legal entities.  Paragraph 2 of the respective Article sets out the state registration as a key condition for non-governmental organizations wishing to secure a legal entity status by proclaiming, “A non-governmental organization shall only secure a legal entity status upon the state registration”. Article 7.1 of the Law emphasizes the importance of state registration for a non-governmental organization by stating, “A state registered non-governmental organization may open its branches and representatives offices either throughout Azerbaijan or in foreign countries”.  According to Article 3 of the 17 April 1998 Law on Grants of the Republic of Azerbaijan, a grant seeking person in his dealing with the donor is deemed a recipient and the following are eligible to be recipients: resident and non-resident legal entities, their branches and representative offices seeking no interest in profit-making and operating in the Republic of Azerbaijan, whose chief goal is implement projects and programs aimed at charities, or fund-raising (these recipients shall only receive grants from donor organizations prescribed by Article 2 paragraph 2 and 4 of this Law, as well as from the state registered branches and representative offices of foreign non-governmental organizations and the branches and representative offices of foreign non-governmental organizations that act as donor organizations and were empowered with this role through the agreement signed in line with the Law on Non-governmental organizations (public unions and foundations))
The law that regulates Azerbaijani NGOs’ grant-seeking activities, which is the only financial source for their operation, stipulates that non-legal entities shall not be able to receive grants. This implies that no NGO without a state registration shall be able to receive grants.
Article 13.2.2 of the Tax Law identifies a legal entity as an enterprise and an organization as a legal personality based on the Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan and that of a foreign country. Article 13.2.13 of the same Law sets a requirement that for the registration of a tax payer it is necessary to have “a state registered name of legal entity”.  
Article 106 of the Tax Law, concerned with compensations and concessions, states that “grants, membership fees and donations received by non-governmental organizations” are exempt from taxation. Article 13.2.42 of the Law expresses that “A non-profit legal entity is an entity established this way under the Civil Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan” and it is provided for in Article 43.5 and Article 43.6 of the respective Code.   This provision articulates that “Legal entities shall be those with activities aimed at generating profit (for-profit legal entities) and/or those organized for the purposes other than generating profit and distributing the revenues to its participants (non-profit legal entities) and that non-profit organizations must be acknowledged as not-for-profit legal entities.   
All the provisions mentioned above point out that the exercise of the right of association by individuals does not, indeed, occur under free circumstances. For this to happen, the initiatives of persons enjoying their rights to freedom of association must be recognized by official state institutions, registered by the state registry and these persons must be provided with a certificate. Only after this, an NGO established with this initiative will secure a legal entity status and will enjoy the rights and privileges granted to legal entities. Therefore, the registration of NGOs is a crucial procedure and this procedure should be realized in conformity with international legal principles and Azerbaijan’s Constitution, thus becoming a pre-emptive process. 
A registration is not a mandatory process for the exercise of the right of association and for the start of an operation in every part of the world. E.g., there is no such requirement as state registration in the domestic legislation for the exercise of the freedom of association in Italy, Portugal, Belgium, Greece, and Luxembourg. This procedure became a requirement in Azerbaijan following its accession to the Council of Europe in 2001 – after it adopted amendments to the Law on Mass Media, making it compulsory those wanting to launch newspapers, TV or journals. Anyone wishing to start newspaper or a journal may start an operation within one week upon submission of a notification letter to the Ministry of Justice. However, the establishment of NGOs has to go through a tougher procedure unlike a print media entity registration.
Article 16 of the Law regulates the state registration of non-governmental organizations. This provision ties exercise of the freedom of association to a system of authorization. We can see from the practices applied by the abovementioned democratic states that no such country imposes a system of authorization on non-governmental organizations through a state registration. However, the Azerbaijani legislation both through Article 16 of this Law and through the Law on State Registry and Registration of Legal Entities formalizes an authorization system through grave provisions. In addition to the cumbersome registration procedures, there is a long period required for the registration process which turns out as a serious challenge. While only three working days are required for the registration of for-profit legal entities, 40 days of registration period is applied to non-profit and volunteer non-governmental organizations, which can be extended up to 30 days in case of a need for clarity. To address issues revealed in the documentations, the founders are given 20 more days and their organizations can be registered within 10 days after the issues identified have been resolved. All timelines identified for the registration of NGOs are regulated under Article 4.5 of the Law on State Registry and Registration of Legal Entities, stating, “Working days are considered when calculating the timelines prescribe by Law”. 100 working days imply at least a twenty-week period, which equals to 140 calendar days. Thus, even in case when the Ministry of Justice issues a state registration to an NGO without any violation of procedures and by following the timelines, it may approximately take five months.  In practice, these timelines are repeatedly not followed, and applications for registration are delayed for months or even years with no registration happening in the end. Research shows that the registration of NGOs applying for state registration takes place from eight to ten months after its establishment. This period can be continuous for years for organizations that do not get registered. No surprising that there a number of decisions issued by the European Court of Human Rights against Azerbaijan. The registration of Public Union for Assistance to Homeless Baku Residents occurred at the end of four years since its establishment and therefore it had appealed to the European Court of Human Rights. The Court issued a judgment acknowledging the interference in the freedom of association. The 11 January 2007 decision of the European Court of Human Rights on the case of Ramazanova and others vs. Azerbaijan (Complaint No. 44363/02) says: “The Court holds that due to the delay of the state registration of the union, the complainants who are the founders of the said-union failed to secure a legal entity status, and this act constituted interference by the authorities in the applicants’ right of association”. This aspect was especially emphasized in another decision of the European Court of Human Rights against Azerbaijan with regard to the freedom of association. In the decisions provided in the cases of Nasibova versus Azerbaijan and I. Aliyev and others versus Azerbaijan, we notice the replication of these aspects.
 While there is a three-day window system in place authorising for-profit legal entities to start their operations that run millions of dollars, however, fifty times more time is required for several volunteers, who do not carry any serious accountabilities and who do not pursue any profit-making interest, to engage in association in order to realize their goals.
The grounds set in the legislation concerning the rejection of a state registration of non-governmental organizations should correspond to the grounds permitting the restriction of the freedom of association. However, one of the grounds set in Article 11.3.2-1 of the Law on Registration of Legal Entities permitting the rejection of rejection of state registration is: “if appropriation of authorities of state and local self-government, as well as state control and examination functions is considered in the charters of non-governmental organizations”. The ground for a rejection set in the provision amended on 12 February 2010 does not align with the lawful grounds established for a restriction in Articles 58 and 71 of the Constitution, Article 3 of the Constitutional Law adopted in 2002, and Article 11 of the European Convention.
One of the grounds provided for in Article 11.3.3 of the Law on State Registration and State Registry of Legal Entities “The titles of state bodies of the Republic of Azerbaijan, as well as the names of Azerbaijani eminent persons (without permission of their next-of-kins and heirs) shall not be used in the names of non-governmental organizations” is a provision replicating Article 3.1 of the Law on Non-Governmental Organizations (public unions and foundations) of the Republic of Azerbaijan. In the previous sections, we noted it as a restriction imposed on the freedom of association that cannot be justified.
The number of regulations prescribed by law and deemed as interference in human rights and freedoms is very high. Article 2.4 of the Law on Non-Governmental Organizations (public unions and foundations) of the Republic of Azerbaijan stating that “Foreign legal entities may participate in exit polls during Presidential, Parliamentary and Municipal elections only in conjunction with Azerbaijan’s non-governmental organizations and the provision provided for in Article 7.5 of the said Law The deputy chairmen of the branches and representations of organizations whose founders are foreigners or foreign legal entities shall be citizens of the Republic of Azerbaijancan be understood as discriminatory in relation to the exercise of the right recognized to everyone.
Article 11 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 58 of the Constitution proclaims the freedom of association as a right recognized to everyone. This can clearly be noticed in the provision stating, Every person has the right to establish a union, including political parties, trade unions and any other public unions, or to join an already existing union. The free functioning of these unions is assured”. The presence of the expression “every person” prevents the discrimination of citizenship. The expression “every person”  is a concept applicable to all human beings. Nevertheless, the application of differentiating norms to founders who are foreigners or foreign legal entities breaches the right to equality provided for in Article 25 of the Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan. According Article 25 of the Constitution, Every Person shall have equal Rights and Freedoms irrespective of race, nationality, religion, sex, origin, property status, social position, convictions, political party, trade union organization and social unity affiliation. Limitations or recognition of Rights and Freedoms because of race, nationality, social status, language origin, convictions and religion shall be prohibited”.
With the amendments made to the Constitution in 2009, paragraph 5 was added to Article 25, which considered it contradictory to the Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan if different requirements are established in an identical regulation by stating, “The equal rights of every person shall be assured in relationship with the responsible persons for State bodies and state authorities adopting decisions concerned with rights and duties”. Nonetheless, paragraph 12.3 was added to Article 12 of the Law on Non-Governmental Organizations (public unions and foundations) on 30 June 2009 and established a different norm for foreign non-governmental organizations in registering their branches and representative offices by stating, “The state registration of a branch or a representative office of a foreign non-governmental organization shall be realized through an agreement signed with it”.   
It is impossible to comprehend the logic and purpose of the legislation in these regulations. A legitimate aim or a legal cause for imposing a restriction on a foreign organization’s activities that must be free to everyone and for the requirement of a different formality for foreign legal entities are not explicable and contradict paragraphs 3 and 5 of Article 25 of the Constitution. The last sentence of the Article regulating the freedom of association stating, “The free functioning of all unions is assured” points out the contradiction of discriminating between local and foreign with the Constitution.
Unfortunately, it has become a continuous practice to adopt norms in various instances that contradict the general order of the legislation and harming the nature of fundamental rights and freedoms. One of such documents is the decision of the Cabinet of Ministers on “the Approval of Rules on Negotiations for, and the signing of, Agreements for the State registration of branches and representative offices of foreign non-governmental organizations in the Republic of Azerbaijan ” that was adopted on 16 March 2011. Through this decision, rules have been confirmed and enacted to negotiations for, and signing of, agreements with regard to the registration of branches and representative offices of foreign non-governmental organizations.   Abstract terms and conditions have been set in these rules under the title “General requirements for launching negotiations” and it is impossible to justify these requirements in a legal sense. Paragraph 2.2 of the Rules contains an expression “The Application shall contain information on the organization and its goals in the Republic of Azerbaijan, as well as the necessity of this activity and its justified contribution to the Azerbaijani society”, which is a vague and legally inexplicable requirement that can be open to serious manipulations and misinterpretations.  Since the registration of a foreign country’s non-governmental organization is necessary for its operation in Azerbaijan, that organization must sign an agreement.  As part of the agreement, “the contribution of that organization’s activity to the Azerbaijani society must be justified”. A public official may deny a state registration to a non-governmental organization with an expressed concern on its activity that aims to support democratization in the country, and this concern may constitute a “lawful ground” not to issue a state registration. The path to launching negotiations for the signing of an agreement could be blocked with reasoning, i.e., “failed to justify its contribution to the Azerbaijani society”.  This response will be lawful, while it will result in the imposition of an unfounded restriction on legitimate public interests and most importantly, on the freedom of association. 
Paragraphs 2.5 and 2.6 of the Rules enable illegitimate interference with the freedom of association.
“2.5 Inquiries are sent to relevant structures to react with regard to the signing of an agreement enabling the state registration of a branch and representative office of a foreign on-governmental organization in case of the absence of required documents”.
“2.6. if the opinions gathered are positive, negotiations with the Ministry of Justice are initiated”
This provision makes it clear that a decision will be taken based upon the results of the opinions provided. The opinions are bound to create a lawful ground. The understanding of “relevant structures” that will provide opinions is vague and open to broad interpretations. 
“The terms and conditions of the future activities of an organization in the Republic of Azerbaijan throughout the negotiations process” have been enumerated under five headlines in paragraphs 3.2 of the Rules, and the two of these conditions can be questioned:
“3.2.2. To treat respectively the national-moral values of Azerbaijan;
 3.2.4. Not to become involved in political and religious propagation”;
Placing a condition “respect for national-moral values” to the registration of an organization is not a legal reason but a requirement open to discussion. As regard the condition “not become involved in political and religious propagation”, this question can also be questioned. E.g., democracy is a form of political regime. The registration of a branch or representative office of a foreign non-governmental organization can be deemed “unacceptable” under this headline and thus become a “lawful” ground to deny a state registration, given the fact that the main objective of this organization is to promote democratization and forge democratic governance skills. A branch or a representative office of a foreign non-governmental organization registered with a condition that it will comply with these rules will carry a responsibility in accordance with the legislation of the Republic of Azerbaijan, in the event it breaches the terms and conditions provided for in paragraph 3.2 of these Rules. It means that the operation of such a branch or a representative of a foreign non-governmental organization may be terminated with a court ruling.
.

Post 2013 and 2014 Amendments Status
In view of the restriction presented by Article 16 that added an authorisation system for state registration, we can find out that the 17 December 2013 amendments made to the Law introduced more restrictions in this frame. Two more paragraphs were added to Article 16 (parag-s: 16.3 and 16.4) which used to consist of solely two paragraphs. Amended Article 16.3 contained provisions requiring revision of foundation documents during the verification process by stating, “If irregularities are revealed in the foundation documents of non-governmental organizations and of branches and representative offices of foreign non-governmental organizations, the relevant executive body shall require those organizations to address these irregularities and submit corrections within thirty days”.  While this might seem as a generic norm at first sight, however, in practice, it may pose challenges to the legal status of the previously registered and functioning representations. In the previous years, there was not a condition of signing an agreement for the registration of such organizations. To instruct those organizations to re-register is legally flawed. According to the Constitutional Law on Normative Acts, unless it is in favour, the amended shall not be applied retrospectively. However, this norm indirectly creates a new legal situation, requiring organizations to address the irregularities identified in the foundation documents within 30 working days. Hence, this enables the indirect application of new norms to everyone with a requirement of aligning the existing documents with the new conditions set. Following the enactment of this norm, in practice when the representations of many international organizations are approached with different reasons (e.g., recognizing the authorities of a legal representative, or registering the changes to the address, etc.) they are also notified to address these issues within 30 days.
Article 16.4 as an amendment to Article 16 of the Law envisages that “For the purpose of suspending the operation of a non-governmental organization and branches and representatives offices of foreign non-governmental organizations, a relevant executive body will be approached”. Accordingly, a new provision on suspension of operation has been included in the legislation. Through this norm, the Ministry of Justice was empowered to fulfil with such a function. In practice, the Ministry of Justice may be appealed to suspend the operation of a branch or a representative office of a foreign non-governmental organization with which the government refuses to sign an agreement due to its disapproval of this organization consisting in monitoring human rights records and preparing relevant reports. This, in turn, will be characterized as terminating the functioning of an organization not by exerting pressure but resorting to the legal means provided by the legislation.  
On 17 December 2013, one more amendment was made to the Article pertaining to the state registration of non-governmental organizations.  This amended norm was incorporated into the legislation on 10 June 2005 following the domestic and international requirements. After the first appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, one of the attempts to improve the legislation was the necessity to indicate clearly the cases of denials of state registration in this law.  This norm provided: “The state registration of non-governmental organizations may only be denied if another organization already exists under the same title or the documents submitted for registration contradict the Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan, this Law and other laws of Azerbaijan, or wrong information are provided in the documents submitted”. Unfortunately, this norm was fully removed from this Law on 17 December 2013 and the following text was added: “17.1. The state registration of non-governmental organizations shall only be denied based upon the grounds provided for in the Law on State Registration and State Registry of Legal Entities of the Republic of Azerbaijan”. While at first view it is feasible to conclude that there is not a single aspect that can be contested legally, however, there are serious legal issues. Firstly, the necessity to indicate the cases permitting the denial of a state registration of an organization or a branch and representative office has been overlooked. Secondly, the Law on State Registration and State Registry of Legal Entities which is applied in rejecting registration has also recently gone through various amendments. Those amendments were mostly of a restrictive nature. As such, four distinct amendments have been adopted to several paragraphs of Article 11 of the aforementioned Law that regulates cases of denials of state registration: two amendments with the 12 February 2010 952-IIIQD Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan; one amendment with the 30 December 2011 284-IIIQD Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan; one amendments with the 17 December  2013 848-IIIQD Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan. As noted, the nature of all these amendments are restrictive. Thirdly, the number of denial cases enumerated in Article 11 of the Law on State Registration and State Registry of Legal Entities is more than those in Article 17 of the Law on Non-governmental Organizations (public unions and foundations). E.g., The documents submitted may generally contradict the Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan, this Law and other legislative acts based on the following, constituting grounds for rejection of a registration:
- when the information provided in the application and/or the documents enclosed to the application are incorrect;
- when the objectives, goals and activities of those applying to become legal entities controvert the domestic legislation;
- When there is a provision on appropriation of authorities of state bodies and local self-government in the statutes of non-governmental organizations and when the statutes envisage controlling functions;
- When the requirements of the law on protection of company names are violated, and/or when there is a revealed fact of two companies registered under identical names; when non-governmental organizations uses the titles of state bodies, as well as the names of eminent persons of the Republic of Azerbaijan (without permission of their next-of-kin or heirs);
- When the shortcomings identified in the foundation documents by a relevant executive body are not addressed within 20 days;
Evidently, the grounds for denial of state registration mentioned here are numerous and many of these grounds are insubstantial. These types of grounds provide a large judgemental authority to public officials and it facilitates the search for a ground permitting a denial of state registration. It was not by chance that NGOs established after 2002 that were denied for state registration due to awkward reasons started appealing to the European Court of Human Rights.  The European Court of Human issued judgments against Azerbaijan recognizing the violation of the freedom of association many cases it heard, including: 01 February 2007 Ramazanov, others versus. Azerbaijan; 18 October 2007 Sheyda Nasibli versus. 2008 Ismailov versus. Azerbaijan.  Many cases had to go through minor cosmetic changes in 2005 throughout the communications and many organizations were registered in order the decrease the number of potential cases to the European Court of Human Rights. However, the process again started regressing beginning from 2009 and the registration issue remains as a challenge jeopardizing the freedom of association. Several researches show the failures of a variety of organizations through this process. This is even led to people’s hopelessness towards starting an organization. In practice, those intending to establish an organization need to provide reference letters from ministries and committees, which is a blow on the freedom of association. In parallel to the toughened legislation on non-governmental organizations, the lawsuits lodged against the NGO sector, arrests, freezing bank accounts, locking of offices, imposition of restrictions on the travel of NGO representatives outside of the country prevents independent activists intending to establish their organizations, thus creating a terrifying impression on these people.
Termination of NGO operation
One of the amendments made to the Law on 17 December 2013 was Article 19.7. This law would not apply to the branches and representative offices of foreign non-governmental organizations. Nonetheless, following the most recent amendments, the scope of application of the law expanded. Therefore, the new amendment was added into the Law in the following text: “When a non-governmental organization of a foreign country merges with another organization or this organization is divided, or it alters its organiozational-legal form, the branch or representative office of this organization in the Republic of Azerbaijan is abolished”. Indeed, in case of the merging, dividing and with an altered organizational-legal status of the founding organizations, the newly established entity should have been able to secure the changes incorporared in its registration documents by submit new documents reflecting the relevant changes in order to continue the operation of a representative office. In this case, the immdediate liquidation of a branch is a very radical step and it leads to the emergence of many other problems in addition to the abolishment of a representative office. E.g., without giving due consideration to the implementation of responsibilities of contracted employees of a representative office as its legal subjects before other entities, the immediate effect of abolishment cannot be deemed regulatory. Legislators and those creating norms must endevour to address problems and foresee the regulation of relations. Application of a radical method to address problems leads to the emergence of new problems.  
The amendment made to Article 20 that introduced a new sentence: “In case of abolition of a non-governmental organization, information related to the settlement of property issues in line with the Civil Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan and the documents confirming this information are submitted to the relevant executive body for the state registry of legal entities”. This new provision is more of a regulatory characteristic. Therefore, I do not see a necessity to dwevle on this issue any longer.
Article 31.4 of the Law on Non-Governmental Organizations (public unions and foundations) of the Republic of Azerbaijan, stating “A non-governmental organization may be abolished with a court decision if it receives more than two written warnings and/or instructions on elimination of irregularities” is in contravention of the freedom of association. As such, sufficiency of “instructions on elimination of irregularities” regardless of the elimination of such irregularities, this provision is a serious legal violation if referred for the closure of an organization and does not hold a legitimate aim towards the restriction of the freedom of association.
On 30 June 2009, Article 31.2-1 was added to the Law on Non-Governmental Organizations (public unions and foundations), which envisaged the issuance of a warning for non-submission of relevant information required for state registry of legal entities or for provision of incorrect information. Article 31.4 establishes that a non-governmental organization can be abolished with a court decision upon the receipt of more than two warning or instructions on elimination of irregularities identified. The most enticing aspect of this Article is the increasing number of warnings issued to NGOs, which proves to be a serious threat to the functioning of NGOs.
One of the warning cases relates to instructions by a related executive body on submission of a relevant report within 30 days after a non-governmental organization has been given a noitification due to the late submission of annual financial report at a given time. Unless a non-gpvernmental organization submits a report within this timeframe, it is held responsible in accordance with the relevant legislation of the Republic of Azerbaijan.
Another case of warning is when a non-governmental organization does not notify the Ministry of Justice on the change to its legal address within seven days.  Unless a non-governmental orfanizations notifies on the change of physical address within this period of time, it receives a warning.
One more case of warning relates to events when a non-governmental organization receives a warning unless it provides a notarised copy of the grant agreement to the Ministry of Justice within 30 days, which leads to a penalty of AZN 1000 to AZN 2500 due to non-submission of copies of grant agreements and decisions in line with Article 223.1 of the Administrative Offences Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan.
If each of the aforementioned cases occurs twice a year, this leads to imposition of restriction on the freedom of association, or entire elimination of this right, surpasses the legitimate aims and this sanction against the yardstick of necessity in a democratic society. 
In general, either the Law on Non-governmental organizations (public unions and foundations) or the Law on State Registration and State Registry of Legal Entities contain provisions jeapordizing the freedom of association and eliminating its importance, restricting the freedom with no grounds, granting limitless authorities to the executive structures, and entail regulations that do not harmonize with the conditions relevant to a democratic society and tie the freedom of association to a system of authorization. Thus, all these regulations need to be aligned with the best practices from democratic countries. 

Activities of Non-Governmental Organizations
Paragraph 4 was added to Article 22 of the Law on 17 December 2013, proclaiming, “A non-governmental organization shall not engage in professional religious activities”. The logic of it is not really clear. Article 2.3 and Article 2.4 of the Law respectively point out based upon which objectives NGOs cannot be established and any activity restrictions. Additionally, a resligious activity is not the one that is prohibited by law. The Constitution assures every person’s freedom of conscience. In the meantime, Article 48, paragraph 2 of the Constitution states: Everyone has the right to define his/her attitude to religion, to profess, individually or together with others, any religion or to profess no religion, to express and spread one's beliefs concerning religion. The elaboration of the expression “engage in a religious activity” can include expression and spreading of religious belief and faith. Restriction of a right and freedom, which is assured in the Constitution, is neither in conformity with a legal principle nor does it give a due consideration to the requirements of Article 71 of the Constitution. This Article limits the will of a legislator and does not allow all branches of the government to introduce more restrictions on the rights and freedoms provided for in the Constitution. To this end, Article 22.4 added to the Law is in contravention of Article 48 of the Constitution. 
On 15 February 2013, a completely new article added to the Law constituting Article 24.1. The title of the Article is donations and grants. Nevertheless, the Article entirely deals with donations. Economic and legal issues related to the issuance, receipt and utilization of grants are mentioned to be regulated by the Law on Grants of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Although this Article was enacted on 15 February 2013, new amendments followed with high speed. At the outset, the 17 December 2013 amendment introduced the expression “the branches and representative offices of foreign non-governmental organizations”. Accordingly, the branches and representative offices of foreign non-governmental organizations that implement large grant projects and are experienced in managing large amounts of funds were left face-to-face with the same problems that local NGOs experienced in registering their donations and grants. Subsequently, a new norm was added to this Article with the 17 October 2014 1082-IVQD Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan: “A citizen of the Republic of Azerbaijan, or a legal entity registerd in the Republic of Azerbaijan, or a foreign legal entity’s branch or representative office (a branch or a representative officer of a foreign country’s non-governmental organization that has signed an agreement prescribed in Articled 12.3 of this Law)”. As such, it was established that donations could be received from this category of entities. Moreover, inclusion of the grants received or issued by a branch and representative office of foreign non-governmental organizations operating based upon an agreement signed indicates the infeasibility of issuing and receiving donations in a different form.
When this norm was introduced, amendments of a similar content were simultaneously made to the 17 April 1998 No. 483-IQ Law on Grants.  The introductory Article of the Law on Grants was amended in the following form with the 17 December 2013 852-IVQD Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan. “This Law regulates economic and legal relationships pertaining to the issuance, receipt and utilization of grants in the Republic of Azerbaijan (including subgrants, supplementary grants, as well as assistances formalized for the purposes indicated in Article 1, section 1 of this Law, excluding donations)”.  Restrictive provisions associated with donations are presented in Article 24-1, and all other types of financial assistances are expressed to be regulated by this law. The definition of “grant” provided in the Law on Grants went through a serious inspection through the 15 February 2013 No. 560-IVQD Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan and introduced the following restrictive provision: “Religious organizations, non-governmental organizations, as well as branches and representative offices of foreign non-governmental organizations that do not have agreements (decisions) on donations or grants, excluding assistances provided by government agencies shall not be able to accept assistance in the form of financial means and/or finances in any other form envisaged in the Law on Freedom of Religion, Belief and Faith and the Law on Grants of the Republic of Azerbaijan”.  
Imposition of restrictions did not stop. Article 1-1 was added to the definitions section of the Law on Grants with the 28 October 2014 No. 1095-IVQD Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan. The amendment said: “Sub-grant is the funds issued to a third party from the finding received based upon a grant agreement (decision) in which it has not been identified as a receipient, through a separate grant agreement (decision) for the purpose of implementation of this agreement”. Through the addition of this provision, the description of sub-grants has been expanded. In parallel, an extensive amendment was adopted to Article 2 of the Law on Grants with the 17 October 2014 No. 1081-IVQD Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan. The amendment contained: “International organizations and their representative offices, foreign governments and their representative offices, charity, humanitarian development and international organizations with different public goals, financial-loan institutions, foreign public organizations involved in development of education, science, health, art and sports, as well as foundations, associations, federations and committees, including the branches and representative offices of foreign legal entities (branches and representative offices of foreign non-governmental organizations that have signed agreements (decisions) in accordance with the Law on Non-Governmental Organizations (public unions and foundations) of the Republic of Azerabaijan) shall be able to act as donor organizations having secured a grantor status in the territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan. In order secure the right to issue a grant; an opinion from a relevant executive structure on the financial-economic relevance of grant is required. 5-1. Rules for securing a grantor status envisaged in section 5 of this Law are established by a relevant executive body”.
Paragraph 2 of the Decree issued by the President of Azerbaijan related to the implementation of 17 December 2014 No. 1081-IVQD Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan that introduced amendments to the 14 November 2014 No. 346 Law on Grants instructs the Cabinet of Ministers “…identify rules for securing grantor status by donor organizations in Azerbaijan by agreeing with the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan” within two months. While this timeline expired on 14 January 2015, no new regulation has been set out yet. In effect, grant-making from foreign sources has been desisted. Until the adoption of this norm, there were foreign grant-issuing donor organizations that did not have any branch or representative office in the country. Moreover, the various Embassies also used to provide grants to local NGOs. Thus, after these amendments, only those organizations that are recognized by the government will be included in the list of eligible donor entities. 
The scope of the definition of ‘recipients’ was also narrowed by amending Article 3 of the Law on Grants through the 17 October No. 1081-IVQD Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan. According to the new regulation, “organizations that operate in the territory of Azerbaijan, and whose objectives set in the statutes are to carry out charity, or implement projects and programs with grants, or those pursuing to receive grants but with no goals of generating profits can receive funding from resident and non-resident legal entities, their branches, representative offices and sections (these recepients can only receive funding fron donor organizations envisaged in Article 2, sections 2 and 4, as well as the registered branches and representative offices of foreign legal entities in Azerbaijan (the branches and representative offices of foreign non-governmental organizations that have signed agreements with the relevant executive strucute in accordance with the Law on Non-Governmental Organizations (public unions and foundations)). Accordingly, non-profit organizations, their branches and representative offices are prohibited to receive grants from foreign sources that have not signed an agreement to operate in Azerbaijan. This norm, in fact, already reveals the list of donors that the Cabinet of Ministers will set. It is not difficult to assume that this list will be quite limited. In general, the recent amendments made to the Law on Grants are thoroughly of restrictive nature.
On 17 December 2013, a series of amendments were adopted to Article 4 of the Law on Grants. The nature of these amendments was that those receiving grants must apply for registration of the respective grant. In addition, registration requirement also applied to sub-grants, and cases related to changes made the already existing grant agreements (decisions), or changes made to the duration, objectives, and amount of funds of agreements. From this date on, no bank transactions and or any other operations would be allowed unless the grants received have been duly registered. The interesting part of this is that the rule for registration of grant agreements (decisions) must be registered by the Ministry of Justice according Article 4-2 of the law.  This condition is also reflected in the Decree issued by the President of Azerbaijan related to the implementation of 17 December 2014 No. 1081-IVQD Law of the Republic of Azerabaijan that introduced amendments to the 14 November 2014 No. 346 Law on Grants. One of the problematic issues faced in the recent year, is annulment of the 12 February 2004 decree of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan on approval of the rules for registration of grantee (granor) agreements (decisions) that was decided with the decree No. 240 of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan on 24 July 2014. The effective date of the decree was 1 November 2014 and henceforth.  The last clause of this decree envisaged that the rules developed by the Cabinet of Ministers as of 1 November 2014 would enter into force. Nontheless, the effective power of the prior rules was repealed without introducing any new rules on 1 November 2014.  Another decree was signed by the President to make changes to the 24 July 2014 No. 240 decree of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan on 14 November 2014. According to thei decree, paragraph 3 envisaging “enter into fornce the rules to be established by the Cabinet of Ministers as of 1 November 2014” was called off. In doing so, the legal force of the prior rules ran out and no norm was established that would establish the date for preparation and enforcement of new rules. It led to a conclusion that it was a deliberate action to create a “legal gap”.  As the Law disallows any operations with unregesitered grants and such illegal operations face high administrative fines, the issuing and implementation of new grants in a new situation terminated. It seems useless to even discuss the legal relevance of this norm, as the operations of NGOs, and the branches and representative offices of international organizations have been legally and practically ceased.  This, per se, is in contravention of Article 11 of the Eruopean Human Rights Convention, and Article 58 and Article 71 of Azerbaijan’s Constitution, and does not serve for legitimate interests. There is no reasonable legal interest that would permit the restrictions imposed.   
The amendment made to paragraph 4 of Article 24-1 of the Law on Non-Governmental Organizations (public unions and foundations) on 17 December 2013 points out that the finances donated shall be acknowledged by non-governmental organizations and by the branches and representative offices of foreign non-governmental organizations through a wire transfer into their bank accounts and only AZN 200 of donation may be received in cash. As a result, discrimination is allowed between not-for-profit and for-profit organizations. While such a restriction is not imposed on for-profit entities, however, non-governmental organizations or any other not-for-profit entities, such as branches and representative offices of foreign non-governmental organizations may not receive donations in cash.  This norm breaches the freeom of association provided for in Article 25 of the Constituion. Likewise, while the domestic legislation enables financial transactions both in cash and through a wire transfer and there is no restriction placed on cash payments, non-governmental organizations and branches and representative offices of foreign non-governmental organizations are deprived of this possibility which is a direction application of discrimination in relation to not-for-profit entities in a legal sense. Despite the fact that the chief sources of funding for these entities are grants and donations that are aimed at pursuing the objectives originally set in their statutes, artificially posed challenges under the pretext of legal regulation leading to the narrowing of their activity spheres cannot serve for legitimate lawful aim. It cannot be explained by expressing concern about transparent operations of NGOs, as these organizations demonstrate more accountability compared to for-profit entities. According to the requirement of the existing legislation, these organizations report to relevant structures and provide relevant documentation as follows: five reports annually - once in each quarter and once a year; annually ten tax reports, five state social protection funds reports, and one financial report if not only they report on a simplified tax system but also as tax payers for income-making; relevant reports and documentations to the Ministry of Justice for each change to physical address; holding gathering, grant-making, change to the duration of existing grant; change to grant objectives, and service provision per grant received. Overall, a non-governmental organization may provide more than 20 reports per year. 
Paragraph 5 added to Article 24-1 of the Law on Non-Governmental Organizations (public unions and foundations) as a result of the amendment adopted on 17 December 2013 was re-amended less than ten days later on 17 October 2014 with the No. 1082-IVQD Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan. The initial text pointed out that non-governmental organizations and branches and representative offices of foreign non-governmental organizations must include information related to the amounts of donations received and persons provided these donations in the financial report submitted to a relevant executive body. The next amendment completely altered the nature of it. The latest version states, “Non-governmental organizations and branches and representative offices of foreign non-governmental organizations communicate the relevant information related to the amounts of donations and persons provided these donations to a relevant executive body in confirmy with a rule established by a relevant executive body. No bank transactions or any pertinent operations shall be realized unless relevant information has been reported on such donations”. While the initial editing of the text sufficed with an annual financial report, the nature of this Article in its final version turned into a restrictive character.  One of the most serious problems here is the absence of any condition related to the timeframe for development of a rule by a relevant executive with regard to the amount of donations and other information for reporting. The decree issued by the President of Azerbaijan related to the implementation of 17 December 2014 No. 1082-IVQD Law of the Republic of Azerabaijan that introduced amendments to the 14 November 2014 No. 345 Law on Non-Governmental Organizations (public unions and foundations) in effect makes the consequences of the terminated activities unclear. The last sentence of this Article does not authorize any operations in the absence of rules to be developed within unknown period of time by stating, “No bank transactions or any other operations shall be realized on donations which have not been duly reported”.  As such, all activities have been terminated with this norm in both legal and technical terms. This fundamentally repeals the freedom of association and restricts any relevant activity.
Article 24-2 was added to the Law on Non-Governmental Organizations (public unions and foundations) with the 17 October 2014 1082-IVQD Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan. The Article is titled “Rendering of services and activities by Non-governmental organizations”. As known, NGOs are able to engage in commercial activities to a limited extent by law. This Law envisages incomes generated from sale of goods, rendering of services and realization of activities prescribed by Article 24.0.3.  While previously the tight control system introduced into the legislation represented an obligation on part of NGOs to get their donations, gifts or any financial assistances registered, the new Article also made it compulsory register their service contracts proclaiming, “A non-governmental organization shall submit the agreements signed for rendering of services or any other activities funded through foreign sources to a relevant executive body”. Paragraph 2 of the same Article inmposes an adminisyrative responsibility stating, “A non-governmental organization providing services without an agreement or with an unregistered agreement shall be involved in a responsibility in accordance with the Administrative Offences Code of the Republic of Azerabaijan”. Hence, unlike other subjects and physical and legal entities, registration of service agreements applicable to NGOs exposes them to serious legal discrimination. Through this amendment, practically every step of NGOs will be possible provided that it secures a state registration. Application of this norm will result in the replication of legal and practical issues experienced during the registration of grants also with the registration of service agreements. While aggrements on grants received from foreign sources have been submitted for registration, however, no agreement has been registered in practice for a year and relevant bank operations have been cancelled.  Paragraph 1.2.2 of the decree issued by the President of Azerbaijan related to the implementation of 17 December 2014 No. 1082-IVQD Law of the Republic of Azerabaijan that introduced amendments to the 14 November 2014 No. 345 Law on Non-Governmental Organizations (public unions and foundations) instructs the Cabinet of Ministers, by agreeing with the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan, to identify, within two months, the rule for registration of agreements on services provided by non-governmental organizations through foreign funding in accordance with Article 24-2.1 of the Law on Non-Governmental Organizations (public unions and foundations) of the Republic of Azerbaijan. While the two-month period set on14 January 2015 period has expired, no regulation was introduced and it is unknown when such a regulation will be issued. Thus, it is possible to claim that similar issues experienced in regitration of grants will also replicate with the registration of service agreements. In general, similar to grants, proceeding of service agreements through various procedures, submission for state registration followed by a translation and notarised confirmation, the prohibition of bank transactions without any notification from the agency responsible for state registration, establishment of a serious administrative responsibility, absence of any responsibility holding public officials for inactiveness, dependence of NGOs and their entire operations upon state registration are serious breach into the freedom of association and are in open contravention of the abovementioned international documents, including Artcile 11 of the Convention, Article 58, 25 and 71 of the Constitution.
The nature of Article 26.4 added with the 17 December 2013 amendment to the Law on Non-Governmental Organizations (public unions and foundations) of the Republic of Azerbaijan is contestable analogous with other amendments. The amendment proclaims: “Executive functions of a public union that have run out their terms of authority shall not be authorised to take decisions related to activity of the organization and/or sign documents”. While it could be assumed as a normal approach at first sight, there is a questionable aspect. Sometimes, not all procedures may take place at a planned time. There are even cases when new elections are not held timely for elected state structures. In this case, the recently elected board or persons execute the same functions until the new elections or election of successors. Moreover, there are provisions in the statutes of organizations that can bridge this gap. If, for various objective reasons, the annual assemblies of public unions do not take place in the time indicated, unauthorisation of their official and authorised structures and persons and paralysing the operations of such entities serve to create a legal problem rather addressing such challenges. The fact that the executive structures of an organization, for an objective reason, have not assembled according to the timing mentioned in its statute should not incapacitate it. There could be provided additional period of time for the formation of new executive structures. The imposition of such harsh regulations seriously challenge the functionality of public associations joined based upon voluntary principles.
The purpose of Article 29.5 of the Law on Non-Governmental Organizations (public unions and foundations) of the Republic of Azerbaijan prepared in new contents on 17 December 2013 is to create a picture of reassured transparency in the activities of non-governmental organizations as well as branches and representative offices of foreign non-governmental organizations. However, the nature of the imperative norm provided in the last sentence “It shall carry out the measures identified in the relevant legislation” is not articulate, which is due to unfocused nature of these measures.
The nature of newly added Article 30-1 of the Law on Non-Governmental Organizations (public unions and foundations) as a result of the amendment adopted on 17 December 2013 is all contestable and aims to control and restrict the activities of non-governmental organizations, as well as the branches and representative offices of foreign non-governmental organizations. While the title of the Article represents it as “Examining the relevance of activities of non-governmental organizations and branches and representative offices of foreign non-governmental organizations with their statutes (charters) and the legislation of the Republic of Azerbaijan”, however, a genuine purpose is to challenge the operations of these NGOs. It is plausible to notice it in the Article. As such, according to paragraph 1, a relevant executive structure determines the relevance of activities of non-governmental organizations and branches and representative offices of foreign non-governmental organizations with their statutes (charters) and the legislation of the Republic of Azerbaijan.  With the decree issued by the President of Azerbaijan related to the implementation of 17 December 2013 No. 849-IVQD Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan that introduced amendments to the 1 February 2014 No. 97 Law on Non-Governmental Organizations (public unions and foundations), the executive body responsible for this function is the Ministry of Justice.  In order to inspect the activities of targeted NGOs, the Ministry of Justice has been granted an opportunity to involve in this work the representatives of the Ministry and other structures. When the operation of EMDS was terminated in practice, “the representatives involved” in the cases against the NGO leaders in this form did not act professionally, misinterpreted the requirements of the legislation and consequently, “legally contributed” to the punishment of NGOs and their leaders despite the fact that the respective Article of the Law stipulates that any impediments to the inspection process shall lead a responsibility as an administrative offence. Obvously, the goal is impose restrictions on the work of public unions and other non-governmental entities.   
Responsibilities of Non-Governmental Organizations
On 17 December 2013, Article 31 of the Law on Non-Governmental Organizations (public unions and foundations) of the Republic of Azerbaijan was introduced thoroughly in a new edition. This Article was indeed tightened through the 30 June 2009 No. 842-IIIQD Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan, and two distincts punishments that never existed in the prior norms were added to the Article. Firstly, it decided to issue a warning to a non-governmental organization for non-submission or incorrect submission of pertinent information related to state registration of legal entities. Secondly, if a non-governmental organization does not submit a financial report within the period of time set, a relevant executive structure sends a written warning requiring the submission of the report within 30 days. The legislation of the Republic of Azerbaijan envisages a responsibility for non-submission of the required report within the period of time set. The new edition of the provision also applies such a responsibility to the branches and representative offices of foreign non-governmental organizations in addition to local non-governmental organizations. In addition, unless these organizations address the shortcoming identified within 30 days, their operations will be suspended for a year through a court decision. There is an abundant number of grounds for suspension. Impeding the elimination of situations leading to application of emergency situations and reluctance to address the shortcoming or irregularities after organizations have been held responsible for not addressing such irregularities will result in those organizations’ suspension for one year respectively with the requirement of the Ministry of Justice and by members of organizations in case of violation of their rights by their organizations’ executive structures. Meantime, Article 31.7 an organization’s operation may be renewed prematuraly through the appeal of the Ministry of Justice or of a person whose right has been violated. However, norms reflecting punishment, restriction and termination stand out in the nature of this respective Article of the Law.
Another serious restriction introduced through this Article consists in the impact of more than two written warnings or instructions on elimination of violations issued a year to a non-governmental organization, or a branch and representative office of a foreign non-governmental organization, which leads to the abolishment of a non-governmental organization or a branch and/or representative office of a foreign non-governmental organization based upon an appeal made by the Ministry of Justice and through a court order.  Similar to other norms, this norm also contradicts the concept of the freedom of association.  As such, sufficiency of “instructions on elimination of irregularities” regardless of the elimination of such irregularities, this provision is a serious legal violation if referred for the closure of an organization and does not hold a legitimate aim towards the restriction of the freedom of association. The most enticing aspect of this Article is the increasing number of warnings issued to NGOs, which proves to be a serious threat to the functioning of NGOs. One of the cases of warning relates to the written warning addressed to an organization by a relevant executive body instructing to submit the relevant reporting within 30 days unless a non-governmental organization submits a yearly financial report. An organization that fails to submit the report within this period of time holds responsibility in accordance with the legislation of the Republic of Azerbaijan.  
Another case of warning concerns changes to a physical address of a non-governmental organization, which must inform in writing the Ministry of Justice of this fact within seven days. An NGO that fails to provide such a notification within the established period of time receives a warning. 
One more case of warning relates to events when a non-governmental organization receives a warning unless it provides a notarised copy of the grant agreement to the Ministry of Justice within 30 days, which results in a warning. As a result, in line with Article 223.1 of the Administrative Offences Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan, unless a legal and physical entity in Azerbaijan, and/or a legal entity’s branch and representative in a donor capacity or as a recepient in the Republic of Azerbaijan submit copies of agreements and decisions on receipt (issuing) of grants to a relevant executive authority within established timeframes, physical entities will have to pay a penalty of AZN 1000 to AZN 2500, public officials will pay a penalty of AZN 1500 to 2500, legal entities will pay AZN 5000 to AZN 7000.  
This norm used to envisage a penalty of AZN 20 to AZN 50 until 12 December 2008. With the 18 December 2008 No. 740-IIIQD Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan, the Administrative Offences Code was amended and the penalty was increased 50 times, i.e., from AZN 1000 to AZN 2500.  The 15 February 2013 No. 563-IVQD Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan increased the amount of the penalty imposed and expanded the scope of category it embraces. Accordingly, officials will have to pay a penalty of AZN 1500 to AZN 2500, and legal entities were decided to pay a penalty of AZN 5000 to AZN 7000. While six years ago, the maximum amount used to be AZN 50, however, this was increased 150 times reaching up to AZN 7500.    
Identical amounts of penalties are also applied to religious organizations for activities and operations realized with grants agreements that have not been registered with a relevant executive authority of the Republic of Azerbaijan.  
The amount of fines for grants received by religious entities, non-governmental organizations, as well as the branches and representative offices of foreign non-governmental organizations operating without grant agreements (decisions) in the Republic of Azerbaijan is even much higher. Through the new norm added to the Administrative Offences Code in accordance with the 5 February 2013 No. 563-IVQD Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan “officials face a penalty of AZN 2500 to AZN 5000 and legal entities face a penalty of AZN 8000 to AZN 15000 with the confiscation of the funds and assets being the direct objects of an administrative offence”.     
Article 223-1.4 added to the Administrative Offences Code through the 7 December 2013 No. 850-IVQD Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan imposes a penalty of AZN 1500 to AZN 5000 on officials, and a penalty of AZN 5000 to AZN 8000 on legal entities “for the realization of bank transactions and any other operations by non-governmental organizations, branches and representative offices of foreign non-governmental organizations in Azerbaijan and banks on grant agreements (decisions) not registered in line with the rules established by the Law on Grants of the Republic of Azerbaijan”.
If each of the aforementioned cases occurs twice a year, this leads to imposition of restriction on the freedom of association, or entire elimination of this right, surpasses the legitimate aims and this sanction against the yardstick of necessity in a democratic society. Moreover, increasing the amounts of penalties by 150 times, which does not reflect the financial and economic grow rate in the country, cannot be deemed regulatory but restrictive. Following the imposition of high penalties on organizations for any violation, this action may constitute a ground for a closure, or having been fined once and even twice leads such organizations to the termination of their operations. Overall, such a norm is not in confirmoty with the concept of the freedom of association.  
In general, the spirit of Article 31 does not possess an element of a restriction that can be applied for other legitimate aims without harming the freedom of association as one of the fundamental rights. Simply, while administrative offences are brought up, grave sanctions have taken over the freedom of association. In this context, the regulation applicable to this Article is neither in line with the international norms nor is it with the Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan. 
Four new Articles (340.2; 340.3; 340.4 and 340.5) were added to the Administrative Offences Code through the 17 December 2013 No. 850-IVQD Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan.

Article 340.2 as one of the amendments concern the breach of the legislation on non-governmental organizations. According to this Article. Officials of non-gvernmental organizations, and branches and representative offices of foreign non-governmental organizations in the Republic of Azerbaijan will face a penalty of AZN 1000 to AZN 2000 and legal entities will face a penalty of AZN 2500 to AZN 3000 for:
               implementation of any activities without state registration of changes (changes to the foundation documents and subsequent changes to the prior information reflected in the state registry of legal entities);
               absence of registry of members by a public union;
               not directing the profits generated as a result of entrepreneurship activity towards the goals of an organization;
               absence of agreements with persons involved on voluntary basis; and
               activities that are in contradiction with the objectives set out in the statute (charter). 
  
Another amendment made to the Administrative Offences Code is Article 340.3. According to this Article, any obstacles created to examining the relevance of activities of non-governmental organizations and branches and representative offices of foreign non-governmental organizations with their statutes (charters) and the legislation of the Republic of Azerbaijan involve an administrative responsibility. According to the Article, the Ministry of Justice shall impose a penalty of AZN 1000 to AZN 2000 on officials and AZN 2500 to AZN 3000 on legal entities for: 
        any obstacles created to examining the relevance of activities of non-governmental organizations and branches and representative offices of foreign non-governmental organizations with their statutes (charters) and the legislation of the Republic of Azerbaijan;
               non-responsiveness to inquiries;
               non-submission of documents and information required; and
               provision of incorrect information.

Another amendment made to the Administrative Offences Code punishes non-governmental organizations and branches and representative offices of foreign non-govenmental organizations for not addressing timely the violations indicated in the warnings and/or instructions provided by a relevant executive authority. Accordingly, public officials shall face a penalty of AZN 1000 to AZN 2000, and legal entities shall face a penalty of AZN 2500 to AZN 3000.
According to another amendment made to the Administrative Offences Code, the violation of rules for the operation of branches and representative offices of foreign non-govenmental organizations can be deemed as one of the grounds for punishment. Physical entities shall face a penalty of AZN 1000 to AZN 2500, officials shall face a penalty of AZN 2500 to AZN 3000 and legal entities shall face a penalty of AZN 5000 to AZN 8000 for the operation of the branches and representative offices of foreign non-governmental organizations without state registration in accordance with the rules established by the Law on State Registration and State Registry of Legal Entities of the Republic of Azerbaijan.  

All issues constituting a basis for administrative punishments in each of the amended Artciles through this regulation in the Administraitve Offences Code are indeed artificially posed challenges. These austronomic amounts of penalties are aimed to impair the freedom of association. Presence of a distince regulation with regard to an identical issue and identification of a different responsibility for the fulfilment of similar functions are in remarkable contravention of paragraph 5 added to Article 25 amended to the Constitution in 2009. According to the Constituion, “Every person’s equal rights shall be assured in relationships with state bodies taking decisions related to rights and duties and the subjects of government authorities”.  While Article 240-3 of the Administrative Offences Code envisages a penalty of AZN 3000 to AZN 5000 for non-responsiveness of non-governmental organizations and branches or representative offices of foreign non-govermental organizations in the Republic of Azerbaijan to the inquiries of the Ministry of Justice, Artcile 181-3.3 of the same Code sets a penalty of AZN 300 imposed on the Ministry of Justice for denying to admit written inquiries addressed by non-governmental organizations, and branches or representative offices of foreign non-governmental organizations, as well  as citizens. A difference in a similar matter is by ten times, which overtly points out the fact that the laws do not serve for the rule of law and justice.    
Proposals

As the nature of Article 58 of the Constitution displays, the legislation regulating the right of association that includes the Law on Non-Governmental Organizations (public unions and foundations), Law on State Registration and State Registry of Legal Entities, Law on Grants, petinenet norms of the Administrative Offences Code, the decrees of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan in this direction and the relevant decisions of the Cabinet of Ministers should be monitored and again elaborated in view of the aforementioned legal problems. Article 58 of the Constituion protects the freedom of association in broader terms and it does not envisage any restrictive legal procedures for the exercise of this right.  Envisaging a procedure in the Law, which is not prescribed in the Constitution and the presence of of a number of restrictive norms in these, procedures contradict the nature and spirit of the Constitution. By law, the regulation of the freedom of association cannot be framed under certain procedures. However, these procedures should not contain norms restricting the freedom but those facilitating the exercise and regulation of this right.
  1. With the involvement of the public respecting democratic values (with active participation and expressed consensus of NGO sector, political parties, media representatives and independent experts), the legislative norms regulating the work of NGOs and foundations, public unions and non-profit organizations should be developed again, the norms existing in the existing legislation and those introduced subsequently that aim to impose restrictions on freedoms and bounding their exercise to complicated procedures should be removed, and the freedoms should be enshrined in the legislation reflective of the international legal norms to which Azerbaijan is a party, the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and the opinions of international organizations, including those of the Venice Commission.  
 
  1. In the absence of a norm envisaging the exercise of the freedom of association in the Constitution upon the relevant authorisation of a relevant executive authority, the procedures for state registration of persons intending to exercise their freedom of the association by creating an NGO, as well as branches or representative offices of foreign non-governmental organizations should be simplified; the registration of non-profit entities should be altered to a notification system similar to that of print media.  Any legal and physical entity  and/or a group of entities, with a prior permission, should be able to engage in association and in doing so, they should be able to launch their operations after a certain period of time (a maximum of one week) having notified a relevant executive authority. The relevant executive authority should issue a state registration to that organization and present a copy of the certificate to the founders of the organization ruling out the presence of a legal entity already registered under an identical name. In all cases, an organization should be able to legally launch its activities within one week.

  1. The norms provided for in the Law on State Registration and State Registry of Legal Entities should be thoroughly revised; state registration should be substituted with a simplified form of a notification system; the norms not resting on legitimate legal aim should be nullified. 

  1. A template of Statute for NGOs and Foundations should be approved in accordance with the Law on Non-Governmental Organizations (public unions and foundations) of the Republic of Azerbaijan; this Statute should establish a unified form of management applicable to either unions or foundations; all NGOs should adopt a system of management in line with this form. Thus, the appearance of a claim on inconsistency of Statutes with the legislation will be prevented. Additionally, such a template of Statute shall contain the lawful grounds permitting the freedom of association as provided in the Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Accordingly, this framework should be deemed as a pre-established boundary for activities acceptable to everyone.   The template of Statute should ensure a freedom for NGOs to choose activity directions that are consistent with the law, thus assuring lawful operation of NGOs. 
  2. All existing norms impeding the operations of non-profit entities, and the branches and representative offices of foreign non-profit entities should be eliminated; the registration system applicable to grants and donations should be abolished; information related to the grants and donations received should be made available in annual financial reports; no bank transactions of grants and donations should be dependent upon any preventive condition; and both in-cash and wire transfer system legally applied in payments of grants and donations should be made feasible. All norms preventing the free operation of donor organizatons should be eliminated. No restriction should be placed on the operations of foreign non-governmental organizations, and branches or representative offices of foreign non-governmental organizations functioning in Azerbaijan, and such a type of discrimination should be inadmissible in the legislation.

6.      The termination of an NGO activity shall be made possible only through a court order:

·         The ground permitting the termination of operations should be provided for in the Constitution, articulately prescrived by law, allow to notice restrictions in advance and should not contain unspecified expressions and norms open to misinterpretations;
    • The purpose and outcome of lawful aims permitting the termination of operations should be endorsed by one or several legitimate interests enumerated in Articles 3.5 and 3.6 of the Constitutional Law on Regulation of Human Rights and Freedoms in the Republic of Azerbaijan, as well as those mentioned in paragraph 2 of Article 11 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms for national security, territorial integrity, public order and safety, prevention of disorder or crime, protection of health and morality and for the defence of the rights and freedoms of other persons;
    • Termination of operation should only take place it aims to protect the most important values necessary for the existence of a democratic society and its application is deemed extremely necessary in a democratic society. To put it more articulately, such an action should be possible only in case other reasonable and rational means restricting the freedom of association to a lesser extent for the protection of legitimate interests have exhausted;
·         Termination of an NGO operation or imposition of other penalty sanctions should be proportionate with the freedom of association. Accordingly, the advantage taken from the protection of a legitimate public interest should more than the harm made to the freedom of association (considering the sanctions to be applied). 

  1. The articificial reasons justifying the termination of an NGO operation should be removed from the Law. Any written warning issued, or an administrative punishment imposed should not constitute a singlehanded ground leading to liquidation of operation of an NGO. The amounts of administrative penlaties should be re-established according to those applied until 2008, and the huge penalties imposed on NGOs that do not pursue any commercial interests should be removed from the Administrative Offences Code.
  2. The activity scopes of NGOs should not be restricted in by law without any lawful ground. The stipulation of activity types that an NGO may engage in indirectly serves for imposition of restrictions. The selection of such a method is inadmissible. 

9.      With an exception of an inadmissibility of registration under indentical names, the presence of norms concerning the names, including a requirement for an NGO to harmonize its goal with a chosen name is a reason restricting the freedom that does not rest on one of the lawful grounds.  The existence of such restictions in the legislation is inadmissible.  
10.  Direct and associated legal normative acts regulating the operation of NGOs sgould be re-reviewed; the provisions of such acts should not challenge the work of NGOs and should be of a regulatory nature;
11.  Encumbering procedures existing in the legislation for the registration of branches and representative offices of foreign legal entities should be simplified; a requirement to sign an agreement should be ended; and application of equal rights between foreign legal entities and local organizations should be ensured. In addition to the procedures required for local NGOs, a certified copy of a document confirming the legal operation of an organization in the country of origin and that organization’s decision to open a branch or a representative office should suffice for state registration of a branch or a representative office of a foreign legal entity.  Yerli QHT-lər üçün tələb olunan proseduradan əlavə, xarici hüquqi şəxslərin filial və nümayəndəliklərinin qeydiyyatı üçün öz ölkəsində hüquqi baxımdan fəaliyyət göstərdiyini təsdiq edən sənədin təsdiqlənmiş surəti və təşkilatın nümayəndəlik və ya filial açmasına dair qərarını təqdim etmək yetərli olmalıdır. The decision No. 43 of the Cabinet of Ministers on the Approval of Rules on Negotiations for, and the signing of, Agreements for the State registration of branches and representative offices of foreign non-governmental organizations in the Republic of Azerbaijanthat was adopted on 16 March 2011 should be abolished and government opportunities for imposing restrictions at this level should be eliminated.  
  1. Actions placing restrictions on the freedoms of NGOs, posing artificial impediments to their legal operations, regardless of those committing such actions, should involve administrative and criminal responsibilities. Accordingly, new Artciles should be added to the Administrative Offences Code and Criminal Code; public officials and entities committing illegal actions or inactions obstructing the work of NGOs and illegally restricting their rights and freedoms should be involved in administrative responsibilities, or criminal responsibilities in the event these actions are committed deliveretely and through the use of violence.