Where Do the Powers of the Khazar District Executive Authority End?

The district administration’s responses to inquiries from the director of the Turan Analytical Service do not relieve it of responsibility for coordination and oversight within the district

Mehman Aliyev, director of the Turan Analytical Service, sent letters and information requests to government agencies concerning the construction of a drainage pipeline in the Buzovna settlement of Baku’s Khazar district. The line is intended to carry rainwater and groundwater into the Caspian Sea.

The requests raised questions about the legal basis for the construction, the identities of the client and contractor, the existence of a project and permits, technical and environmental oversight, the safety of discharging water into the sea, the construction timetable, the restoration of the road surface and the responsibilities of government agencies.

The Khazar District Executive Authority responded on June 4 and August 11, 2026. In both letters, the district administration stated that internal investigations, technical inspections and oversight, as well as the legal assessment of inspection results, did not fall within its powers.

To what extent is this position consistent with the law?

What the responses say

The June 4 letter, signed by Afser Mirzaliyev, deputy head of the Khazar District Executive Authority and head of its Department for Socio-Economic Affairs, Architecture, Construction and District Services, said the appeal had been examined according to jurisdiction.

The district administration stated:

The internal investigations, technical examinations, oversight and legal assessment of inspection results referred to in the appeal do not fall within the powers of the Khazar District Executive Authority as established by law.

The August 11 letter, signed by Deputy Head of the Executive Authority and Head of the Department for Territorial Organisation and Socio-Political Affairs Lala Ahmadova, contains almost identical wording.

The letters also state that the Executive Authority sent an official inquiry to the United Water Supply Service of Large Cities.

According to information from the State Service for Supervision over the Use and Protection of Water under the Azerbaijan State Water Resources Agency, a water sample was collected from the inspection chamber closest to the point where the Buzovna drainage line discharges into the sea. The United Water Supply Service of Large Cities’ Central Laboratory reportedly found no pollutants in the sample.

The authorities also said that the area had been placed under observation. If any unauthorised connection inconsistent with the drainage line’s designated purpose is discovered, measures prescribed by law are to be taken.

Where the Khazar District Executive Authority is correct

Baku is subject to a special division of powers in urban planning and construction.

For most projects within the capital’s administrative territory, construction and occupancy permits are issued by the State Committee for Urban Planning and Architecture rather than by district executive authorities.

State construction supervision is also outside the powers of the Khazar District Executive Authority. Responsibility for checking whether construction complies with the approved project, mandatory standards and safety requirements lies primarily with the Ministry of Emergency Situations.

Supervision over the use and protection of water, laboratory analysis of its composition and technical assessment of a drainage system fall under the authority of water-management bodies and specialised regulatory services.

The district Executive Authority therefore:

• does not replace the State Committee for Urban Planning and Architecture in issuing construction permits;
• does not exercise state construction supervision;
• is not required to conduct laboratory tests of water itself;
• does not replace specialised water and environmental regulators;
• is not authorised to deliver the final legal assessment of inspections conducted by other government bodies.

Within this narrow scope, the district administration’s position can be regarded as justified.

However, the general statement that “oversight” falls outside its authority is excessively broad and legally imprecise.

The district’s responsibilities do not end with forwarding letters

The Regulations on Local Executive Authorities, approved by Presidential Decree No. 648 of June 6, 2012, assign district administrations specific responsibilities in urban planning, infrastructure, public amenities and environmental protection.

Under paragraph 3.11.1 of the Regulations, a local executive authority must ensure implementation of state policy on architecture and urban planning within its territory.

Paragraph 3.11.2 provides for oversight of urban-development activity in accordance with approved planning documents, standards and rules.

If a breach of construction standards is discovered, paragraph 3.11.5 requires the local executive authority to apply to a court or the Ministry of Emergency Situations to have construction suspended.

The Regulations also provide that a local executive authority must:

• take environmental-protection measures within the district;
• coordinate the activities of individuals and legal entities involved in infrastructure construction and repairs;
• organise the construction and repair of social and industrial infrastructure;
• oversee the maintenance of construction sites that may threaten to pollute surrounding areas;
• oversee landscaping and improvement of sites after construction has been completed;
• submit proposals concerning projects for the construction of engineering and transport infrastructure;
• require an environmental assessment of projects and facilities that may pollute land, air or water;
• raise the question of redesigning a project or suspending construction before the competent authorities if the assessment is negative.

The district Executive Authority is therefore not a specialised state supervisory agency, but it does have territorial, coordinating and oversight functions.

Project approval, state supervision and territorial responsibility

Three different types of authority must be distinguished in this case.

The first is formal project approval and the issuance of a construction permit. In Baku, this function is exercised for most projects by the State Committee for Urban Planning and Architecture.

The second is state technical supervision. This function belongs primarily to the Ministry of Emergency Situations and other specialised government bodies.

The third is territorial administration, coordination of infrastructure works, public improvements and responses to possible violations. These functions remain with the local executive authority.

The Khazar District Executive Authority may not have been the agency that approved the drainage project. But this does not entitle it to treat itself as having no responsibility for work carried out in central Buzovna that obstructs cars, buses and pedestrians, damages a road and may create a risk of pollution along the Caspian coast.

At a minimum, the district administration should establish:

• who commissioned the project;
• which agency prepared and approved it;
• who the contractor is;
• which authority authorised the work;
• who is responsible for technical supervision;
• who must restore the road surface;
• which organisation will operate the drainage line after construction is completed.

Questions that remain unanswered

The two letters from the Khazar District Executive Authority do not identify the project’s client or contractor.

Nor do they provide information on:

1. The legal basis for the construction and excavation works.
2. The drainage project and the agency that approved it.
3. Whether a construction permit was issued or a notification procedure was used.
4. Which authority approved the discharge of rainwater and groundwater into the Caspian Sea.
5. The technical specifications for construction and operation of the line.
6. The project’s environmental assessment.
7. The arrangements for technical supervision.
8. The official authorisation of temporary traffic restrictions.
9. The deadline for completing the work.
10. Responsibility for restoring the asphalt surface.
11. The owner and future operator of the facility.
12. The reason no project information board was displayed at the construction site.

It is also unclear why testing a single water sample was regarded as sufficient to reach a general conclusion about the safety of the drainage line.

A single sample only indicates the water’s composition at a particular place and time. It does not establish whether the project complies with the law, whether intermittent polluted discharges may occur, whether other connections exist or what the long-term impact on the coastal area may be.

Forwarding an appeal is not the same as fully examining it

The Khazar District Executive Authority was right to forward the inquiry to the United Water Supply Service of Large Cities. However, referring an appeal to another institution does not release the district administration from examining the issues that fall within its own authority.

It should have provided separate answers concerning:

• the condition of the area and the road;
• the consequences of the excavation work;
• restoration of the asphalt;
• compliance with public-improvement requirements;
• the possible risk of pollution in the surrounding area;
• coordination between utility and construction organisations;
• measures taken by the district administration after receiving residents’ complaints;
• referral of the materials to construction and environmental regulators.

If individual issues fall within the jurisdiction of the State Committee for Urban Planning and Architecture, the Ministry of Emergency Situations, the State Water Resources Agency or the Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources, the district authority should clearly identify which body is responsible for each issue.

A general reference to lack of jurisdiction does not allow citizens to establish who is accountable for the project and its consequences.

A contradiction in the district administration’s position

The letters contain an internal contradiction.

On the one hand, the Khazar District Executive Authority states that oversight is outside its powers. On the other, it reports that it contacted the water utility, received laboratory results and obtained information that the area had been placed under observation.

The district administration is therefore participating in inter-agency coordination and receiving information about oversight of the site. It should consequently have continued examining the issue and established the project’s legal status, client, contractor and responsible officials.

It is also significant that the June 4 letter was signed by the deputy head of the district who simultaneously heads the Department for Socio-Economic Affairs, Architecture, Construction and District Services.

The existence of such a department does not make the district administration a state construction regulator. It does, however, confirm that construction, infrastructure and territorial development fall within the scope of its activities.

A partially correct but incomplete response

The Khazar District Executive Authority’s statement is consistent with the law only in a limited sense.

The district administration is not required to conduct specialised technical examinations, laboratory analysis of water or state construction supervision. The principal permitting powers in Baku have been assigned to the State Committee for Urban Planning and Architecture.

This does not mean, however, that the local executive authority has no oversight or coordination responsibilities.

It is responsible for implementing state urban-planning policy in the district, coordinating infrastructure works, monitoring the condition of construction sites and the subsequent improvement of the territory, and taking environmental-protection measures. When a violation is detected, it must apply to the competent regulatory authorities and seek appropriate action.

A legally adequate response should therefore have stated not only that specialised supervision fell outside the district authority’s remit, but also described the measures it had taken within its own powers.

Instead, the lawful division of responsibilities has been used to narrow the local authority’s practical accountability for work being carried out within the Khazar district.

The letters and information requests from the director of the Turan Analytical Service have still not received complete substantive answers. The project’s client, legal basis, permits, contractor, environmental-control procedure and the organisations responsible for restoring the road and subsequently operating the drainage line have yet to be disclosed.

Official sources: Urban Planning and Construction Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan, Regulations on Local Executive Authorities, Presidential Decree No. 695 on the application of the Code, and the decree on the division of powers and the Electronic Construction Portal.