The actions of the government in relation to taxi services are contrary to the constitution

***

- Alasgar Bey, Baku Transport Agency (BNA) is developing a unified concept for taxi services. How do you think, is there a constitutional basis for developing such a concept?

- The development of a unified BNA concept for taxi services is not based on constitutional law. In general, the BNA was created as a structure under the Cabinet of Ministers. At the same time, regulation of the transport sector is an issue within the competence of local executive authorities in accordance with the Regulation on Local Executive Bodies approved by the President in 2012. That is, the role of any specific agency in the regulation of transport, which is within the competence of the local executive power, is not correct from the point of view of the government's performance of its function and exceeds the scope of its powers. Because, according to the provisions of the Constitution, the President approves the Regulation on the local executive power and creates it as a whole. But the Cabinet of Ministers is a constitutional body. That is, it is not created by the president. In such a case, the powers of the Cabinet of Ministers must not exceed the powers specified in Article 119 of the Constitution. At present, the Cabinet of Ministers is clearly going beyond its powers, interfering in the transport process. He can do more general things. And the issue of transport is more of a communal issue and is actually part of the functions of municipalities. This is currently being done by local executive authorities.

-Do you think that the development of a unified concept related to the taxi service, as well as the operation of a taxi in the form established by the government, is not a violation of antimonopoly legislation?

- The second side of the question is that the taxi service in general refers to private initiatives. Usually public transport is regulated in some form by the municipal or executive authorities.The taxi service can provide services within the framework of free market relations, as it refers to private initiatives, and the price of this service is also determined by the market.  The Ministry of Transport, Communications and High Technologies of Azerbaijan in this regard is endowed with certain powers. Within the framework of these powers, the entities engaged in taxi services pay for a license on a one-time basis and provide services on the basis of a permit. In addition, to interfere in some form with issues of price or number of service providers, as well as regulate the market - these issues are clearly outside the competence of the government. This means exceeding authority. The Article 15 of the Constitution says that in Azerbaijan the state must create conditions for the development of a socially oriented economy based on market relations. Free enterprise should be guaranteed and monopoly and unfair competition in economic relations should not be allowed. If, in this case, such a concept is developed, and in this concept an attempt is made to regulate taxi prices and other issues, this will automatically lead to a specific monopolization of the taxi sector. Because government interference in these activities actually serves to reduce the quality of services, the disappearance of competition and the emergence of a monopoly. From this point of view, such a step is clearly contrary to the Constitution itself. Article 15 of the Constitution does not allow this. The Article 16 of the Constitution indicates that the state must take steps to improve the well-being of the people and citizens, take care of their social protection and a decent standard of living.

This means that, for example, a citizen uses a cheaper taxi service and this is a matter of his social benefit. But if you refuse this and switch to a more expensive tariff service, this will lead to the fact that all citizens will not have equal access to the taxi service. It will definitely serve the monopolists and economic monopoly, and not improve the welfare and social protection of citizens. This approach is contrary to the provisions of the Constitution.

- Choice and the use of taxi services is also a consumer's right. In your opinion, is the equalization of taxi services consistent with consumer rights? Will consumer interests be protected in this case?

- There is also a consumer side of the issue. This service, on the one hand, is in demand, and on the other, it is supply. Supply and demand are mutually regulated. The more is  demand, the more are offers. Or, conversely, if there is no demand, supply also decreases. Currently, the issue of supply and demand in the taxi market has led to price liberalization. In fact, the parties to each side are in agreement. Both one party and the consumer are satisfied. Service providers pay taxes and earn money. Consumers use taxis at a more efficient price. If tomorrow something changes in this direction, it will be a gross interference with consumer rights. And this intervention will alienate people from cheaper and more accessible services and burden more expensive and inaccessible ones. This is a violation of consumer rights, and illegal state interference in the economy.

- Why does  not the State Labor Inspectorate and the State Antimonopoly Service  react to what is happening?

- The state, on the one hand, says that it opens up new jobs, creates new employment. On the other hand, through such measures it tries to limit the possibilities of the population in some form. This is contrary to the government's stated policy. In general, the vast majority of government-created institutions are showcase institutions rather than functional ones. From this point of view, the presence of both the labor inspectorate and the antimonopoly State Service is not an indicator of some kind of functionality, as I said, they perform the functions of a showcase, that is, we have such structures. However, they can never run counter to government policies determined from above. In general, these are not independent structures that can do this.

 - What can be done to prove that this concept does not meet legal requirements? Can this concept be canceled through the courts? What procedures are provided to prevent such a process? Who can do something?

- In general, it is ridiculous for a transport management agency to perform a government function and develop a concept. The state concept in this area is within the competence of the Ministry of Transport, Communications and High Technologies as a state institution. The ministry can do this. If the ministry is not involved, then the development of such a concept by an agency operating in any service sector is an indicator of a confusion between the concepts of state and law. The agency that controls the service sector cannot develop a concept, a policy of the state. This should be done by the Ministry and constitutional structures. And in this case it is appropriation and abuse of authority. According to the legislation, excess of powers should create legal liability. It looks like an ordinary person makes a proposal to parliament and obliges to be accepted. Whereas the Constitution says that 6 subjects can come up with a proposal for a law. If you look from this aspect, then the preparation of this concept by this structure is clearly an abuse of power.

 - In general, how can liberalization in this sphere be carried out in accordance with the legislation and the Constitution, so that a monopoly does not occur in Azerbaijan, that the state does not interfere in the private sphere, that there is healthy competition, private spheres develop, and the rights of entrepreneurs and consumers are protected?

-Liberalization is a matter of the government's vision. If the government does not want to look to the future in this direction, it will be impossible to do it in any form, even if it is provided by law and the Constitution. There are clear guidelines in the Constitution regarding free enterprise, as I said above in Articles 15 and 16 on monopoly issues. Nevertheless, if we pay attention to the fact that the sectors that are natural state monopolies, or the taxi business, which they want to artificially monopolize, and in other sectors, without connection with the state, want to expand and regulate this area, despite the fact that directly the subjects of the free market are a regulated area, this directly contradicts the Constitution. But this is happening. Today, if you look at the communications sector, you can see that the entire Internet is in the hands of a state provider.

Or most of such mobile operators as Azercell, Aztelecom are in the hands of the state. Although the state is endowed with a regulatory function, it also wants to be a player in the market. As if on the football field the state judges and scores goals. Since the state itself is the referee, it can consider even a goal scored from offside as a goal.  This is a point that seriously worries the other side. You cannot be both a judge and a player. If you are a judge, there must be parties that you must judge. Currently, the executive structures of the state are unambiguously both judges and players. It also puts other players in a position of permanent defeat.