Protection of Personal Data in Azerbaijani Law: Legislation, Implementation, and a Comparative Analysis with Turkey's KVKK

Section I: Executive Summary and Strategic Outlook

1.1. Purpose and Scope of the Report

This report has been prepared to present a comprehensive analysis of the legal framework concerning the protection of personal data in the Republic of Azerbaijan. The main focus of the report is the examination of the Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan "On Personal Data" ("Fərdi Məlumatlar Haqqında") No. 998-IIIQ dated May 11, 2010, the presentation of the legal text, and a comparative assessment of this legislation with Turkey's Law on the Protection of Personal Data No. 6698 (KVKK). The analysis aims to be a strategic resource for legal and compliance leaders seeking to understand the legal obligations, fundamental principles, data subject rights, and compliance processes in both countries.

1.2. Key Findings for Legal and Compliance Leaders

The most critical findings emerging from this analysis are summarized below:
  • Historical Context and Philosophy: Azerbaijan's 2010 Law on Personal Data, which came into force before the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) became a global standard, establishes a consent-oriented and state-control-focused data protection regime. This indicates that the law is based on more traditional privacy principles rather than modern data protection concepts (e.g., data portability).
  • Regulatory Structure: The regulatory environment in Azerbaijan is characterized by direct supervision from the relevant ministry and the involvement of state security services, unlike Turkey's independent Personal Data Protection Authority (KVKK), which has administrative and financial autonomy. This structure suggests that regulatory priorities may be influenced by broader state interests rather than solely by data protection principles.
  • Compliance Model: Compliance in Azerbaijan is fundamentally different from the "data controller"-centric registration model seen in Turkey (VERBİS), instead relying on a unique "information system"-centric registration requirement. This necessitates that compliance programs be structured with a focus on technical infrastructure and on a project basis.
  • Cross-Border Data Transfer: Cross-border data transfers from Azerbaijan are subject to a broad and potentially unpredictable "national security" veto power, which creates a distinct risk category for international organizations. This diverges significantly from Turkey's more structured and predictable approach.

1.3. Comparison at a Glance: Azerbaijan and Turkey

This section summarizes the most fundamental structural differences between the data protection regimes of the two countries for quick reference.                                             
The legal regulation concerning data protection in Azerbaijan is Law No. 998-IIIQ, which entered into force on May 11, 2010. In Turkey, the main regulation in this field is the Law on the Protection of Personal Data No. 6698 (KVKK), which entered into force on April 7, 2016. Azerbaijan's data protection philosophy is consent-oriented and state-controlled, a system based on pre-GDPR approaches. Turkey's system is based on the European Union's Directive 95/46/EC, but a rights-based approach has been adopted in the post-GDPR era. In Azerbaijan, the regulatory authority consists of relevant state institutions such as the Ministry of Transport, Communications and High Technologies and the State Security Services. In Turkey, the independent Personal Data Protection Authority (KVKK) is the authorized body in this area. Regarding the registration obligation, the state registration of personal data information systems is mandatory in Azerbaijan. In Turkey, data controllers are required to register with VERBİS (The Data Controllers' Registry Information System). In terms of legal basis, Azerbaijan primarily relies on "explicit consent," whereas Turkey utilizes multiple legal bases (consent, law, contract, legitimate interest, etc.). Concerning cross-border data transfer, Azerbaijan applies a "national security threat" veto and an adequacy assessment. Turkey regulates cross-border transfers through various methods such as adequacy decisions, appropriate safeguards (e.g., standard contractual clauses), and explicit consent. Finally, in the context of modern rights, the right to data portability does not exist in Azerbaijani legislation, while in Turkey, the right to data portability is available.

Section II: The Legal Framework for the Protection of Personal Data in the Republic of Azerbaijan

2.1. Introduction to Law No. 998-IIIQ "On Personal Data" ("Fərdi Məlumatlar Haqqında")

The fundamental legal regulation concerning the protection of personal data in the Republic of Azerbaijan, Law No. 998-IIIQ "On Personal Data" ("Fərdi Məlumatlar Haqqında"), was adopted on May 11, 2010. The law's date of entry into force is of critical importance for understanding its legal philosophy. Having been drafted before the global paradigm shift introduced by the GDPR, this law primarily aims to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals, to establish a legal basis for the collection, processing, and protection of personal data, and to regulate the formation of the "personal data section of the national information space."
The law is not a standalone regulation but is supported by various decrees such as the "Requirements for the Protection of Personal Data." This indicates that the data protection regime in Azerbaijan has a multi-layered regulatory structure. The law's 2010 origin explains why it does not include modern concepts like "data portability" or the "right to be forgotten" in their current senses. Although it largely derives its legal basis from earlier frameworks like the Council of Europe's Convention 108, to which Azerbaijan is a signatory, it lacks the strong enforcement mechanisms and expanded rights introduced by later legislation like the GDPR. This legal "age" has directly shaped the absence of certain rights in the law and the state-centric control model that was more common before the rise of independent data protection authorities.

2.2. Fundamental Principles and Key Definitions (Articles 2 & 4)

The law sets forth the fundamental principles to be followed in the processing of personal data in its Article 4. These principles are: legality, confidentiality, and the reconciliation of voluntariness and obligation. The law also explicitly states that the processing of data is not permitted to "create a threat to a person's life and health, or to humiliate their honor and dignity."
To understand the scope and obligations of the law, the key definitions in Article 2 are vital:
  • Personal Data (Fərdi məlumatlar): Any information that allows for the direct or indirect identification of a person (Article 2.1.1).
  • Data Subject (Fərdi məlumatların subyekti): An identified or identifiable natural person about whom personal data is collected, processed, and protected (Article 2.1.2).
  • Personal Data Owner (Fərdi məlumatların mülkiyyətçisi): A state or local self-governing body, legal or natural person who exercises full ownership, use, and disposal rights over the information system and inventory of personal data, and determines the purpose of personal data processing. This definition is the closest equivalent to the "Data Controller" concept in the KVKK (Article 2.1.9).
  • Personal Data Operator (Fərdi məlumatların operatoru): The data owner who carries out the collection, processing, and protection of personal data, or the state or local self-governing body, legal or natural person to whom these functions are entrusted under a certain amount and conditions. This definition is similar to the "Data Processor" concept in the KVKK (Article 2.1.10).
  • Personal Data User (Fərdi məlumatların istifadəçisi): An entity granted the right to use personal data in a manner determined by the data owner within their authority (Article 2.1.11).
The distinction between the "Mülkiyyətçi" (Owner) and "Operator" is not as clearly defined as the "Data Controller" and "Data Processor" relationship in the GDPR or KVKK. The Azerbaijani law states that the "Owner may entrust the collection and processing to the operator based on a contract." However, the definitions do not include a detailed allocation of responsibilities and liabilities as in modern laws. Responsibility for damages arising from violations falls directly on the "Owner." While this may simplify claims, it leaves the specific contractual obligations and responsibilities between the Owner and the Operator less regulated by the law itself compared to the KVKK.

2.3. Legal Basis for Data Collection and Processing (Articles 8 & 9)

The primary legal basis for data processing in Azerbaijani law is explicit consent. The law states that the collection and processing of personal data are possible "only with the written consent of the person concerned, including consent in the form of an electronic document," except in mandatory cases specified by law.
The strict requirements for valid written consent include the necessity for the consent to contain the purpose of processing, the list of data for which consent is given, its period of validity, the conditions for its withdrawal, and the conditions for destruction or archiving after its expiration or in the event of death. The exceptions to the consent rule are quite limited and are listed in Article 9.2 as follows: when the processing is based on other legislation, when data is fully anonymized for scientific/statistical research, or when it is necessary to protect the life and health of the person concerned.
The most significant consequence of this structure is the absence of a flexible processing basis such as "legitimate interest." Modern businesses in jurisdictions like the EU and Turkey rely heavily on "legitimate interest" for a wide range of common activities such as fraud prevention, network security, and certain types of marketing. The Azerbaijani law does not provide this flexible legal ground.
Therefore, any organization operating in Azerbaijan must restructure its data processing activities to fit within the narrow confines of explicit consent or the few other exceptions. This means that activities that are standard practice elsewhere (e.g., using customer data to improve internal services) would require explicit, specific, and detailed consent in Azerbaijan, which is a much higher and more difficult compliance bar to clear. This has direct cost, user experience, and business process implications.

2.4. Rights of the Data Subject (Article 7)

Article 7 of the Law grants a series of rights to individuals. These rights include:
  • The right to receive information about the existence of personal data concerning them (Article 7.1.1).
  • The right to request the legal grounds for data processing (Article 7.1.2).
  • The right to become acquainted with the content of the personal data collected (Article 7.1.3).
  • The right to request the correction or destruction of the data (Article 7.1.5).
  • The right to demand the prohibition of data processing (Article 7.1.6).
  • The right to know the source of their data (Article 7.1.7).
  • The right to object to data processing; this objection must be justified and should lead to the immediate cessation of processing by the owner/operator (Article 7.2).
To exercise these rights, a written application or an electronic request with a qualified electronic signature is required, and the response time is 7 business days. Although the list of rights in Article 7 is comprehensive for its era, it does not include concepts such as the "right to data portability," which is one of the cornerstones of modern data protection regimes.
This right allows a user to receive their data in a machine-readable format and transfer it to another service. The absence of this right in the Azerbaijani law reflects its origins in 2010, a time when interoperability and user empowerment were not central tenets of data protection. This is a significant differentiator, especially for businesses in the digital services sector.

2.5. Obligations of Data Owners and Operators (Articles 5, 10, 15)

The law imposes several obligations on data owners and operators:
  • Security Obligation: Owners/Operators must take organizational and technical measures to protect data. Specific requirements are determined by the "relevant executive authority."
  • Confidentiality: Persons working with personal data must provide a written commitment not to distribute this data during and after their employment.
  • Registration Obligation: The most critical obligation is the mandatory state registration of "personal data information systems" with the relevant executive authority before data collection and processing begins. The detailed information required for this registration is listed in Article 15.4.
  • Liability: The "Owner" is primarily responsible for compensating for material and moral damages arising from violations.
The "information system" registration model creates a fundamentally different compliance path from the "data controller" registration model. Registering an "information system" implies a focus on the technical infrastructure where data is processed—a specific database, application, or server cluster. This differs from Turkey's VERBİS system, where the "data controller" (the legal entity) registers its processing activities and purposes. For a business in Azerbaijan, this means that compliance likely consists of a series of discrete, IT-centric projects. A new HR system, a new CRM, a new marketing database—each could potentially require its own registration process with the Ministry. This is administratively more burdensome and less flexible than the Turkish model, where the company registers once as a data controller and then updates its inventory of processing activities. This structural difference dictates how a compliance program must be organized and resourced.

2.6. Regulation of Special Category and Biometric Data (Articles 2.1.6, 9.3, 9.5)

The law defines "special categories of personal data" as information related to a person's race, nationality, family life, religious beliefs, health, or convictions. The processing of this data is generally prohibited, with very narrow exceptions, such as when it is required by law, the data is already public, or it is necessary to protect a life in situations where consent cannot be obtained. The law explicitly states that its provisions also fully apply to the collection and processing of biometric data (fingerprint, facial image, iris, etc.), showing a forward-thinking inclusiveness for a 2010 law.

2.7. Cross-Border Data Transfers (Article 14)

The law imposes restrictive rules for international data transfers. The fundamental prohibition is as follows: The transfer is prohibited if it "poses a threat to national security" or if the legislation of the recipient country does not provide a level of legal protection established by Azerbaijani legislation. Exceptions are possible if the data subject consents or if the transfer is necessary to protect the life and health of the person concerned.
The "national security" clause introduces a high degree of legal and political uncertainty. Unlike the structured adequacy decision process in Turkey or the EU, Azerbaijan's framework includes a vague and powerful veto power based on "national security." This term is not defined in the data protection law, meaning its interpretation is left to the discretion of state authorities. For a multinational company wanting to transfer employee or customer data to a central server outside Azerbaijan, this poses a significant risk. A transfer that is perfectly legal one day could be deemed a threat to national security the next, depending on the geopolitical climate or other factors. This makes it extremely difficult for legal counsel to provide a definitive opinion on the long-term viability of data transfers and forces businesses to consider data localization as a primary risk mitigation strategy.

2.8. Regulatory Oversight and Enforcement (Articles 15-17)

The primary regulatory body is the "relevant executive authority," which in practice is identified as the Ministry of Transport, Communications and High Technologies. This body is responsible for the state registration of information systems, maintaining the state register, and checking for compliance.
The role of other state bodies is also important, particularly the State Special Communications and Information Security Service (SCIS), formed from the former Special State Protection Service. The SCIS is responsible for the security of state information systems, cybersecurity, and cryptography. This regulatory framework is a hybrid of civil administration and state security. While day-to-day registration is handled by a civil ministry, the deep technical and security aspects, especially those concerning state interests, fall under the jurisdiction of a security service. This structure is fundamentally different from Turkey's independent authority, the KVKK. This implies that enforcement priorities may be influenced not only by pure data protection principles but also by broader state security and political concerns.

Section III: Comparative Analysis: The Azerbaijani Law on Personal Data and Turkey's KVKK

3.1. Founding Philosophies and Timelines

Azerbaijan's 2010 law is a product of the era of the Council of Europe's Convention 108. In contrast, although Turkey's 2016 KVKK is based on the EU's 1995 Data Protection Directive, it has been actively interpreted and amended in a post-GDPR world, making it a more dynamic piece of legislation. This fundamental difference profoundly affects the two laws' approaches to data protection, their definitions, and the obligations they impose.

3.2. Key Definitions and Roles: A Comparative Glossary

The differences between Azerbaijan's "Owner/Operator" and Turkey's "Data Controller/Data Processor" definitions illustrate how compliance responsibilities are allocated. In Turkish law, the allocation of responsibilities is more explicit and detailed.
Illustrative examples show differences in terminology: In Azerbaijan, the owner of personal data is "fərdi məlumatların mülkiyyətçisi," equivalent to Turkey's "veri sorumlusu" (data controller), with Azerbaijan emphasizing ownership and Turkey emphasizing responsibility for processing purposes. The Azerbaijani "fərdi məlumatların operatoru" (operator of personal data) corresponds to Turkey's "veri işleyen" (data processor); both act under the data controller's instructions, but Turkey's KVKK details processor obligations more thoroughly. "Fərdi məlumatların sistemi" (personal data information system) in Azerbaijan, a technically focused definition, is a "veri kayıt sistemi" (data filing system) in Turkey, which has a broader scope. Finally, "rıza" (consent) in Azerbaijan, typically written or electronic, is "açık rıza" (explicit consent) in Turkey; while both require informed and free will, Turkey accepts electronic or even oral consent more readily than Azerbaijan's emphasis on written format.

3.3. Legal Bases for Processing: A Comparison of Consent-Oriented and Multi-Faceted Approaches

This is the most significant operational difference between the two regimes. Azerbaijan's near-total reliance on "explicit consent" severely restricts flexibility for businesses. In contrast, Article 5 of Turkey's KVKK offers a much more flexible legal ground.
The KVKK recognizes the following legal bases besides consent:
  • It is explicitly provided for in the laws.
  • It is necessary for the protection of the life or physical integrity of the person himself/herself or of any other person, who is unable to express his/her consent due to actual impossibility or whose consent is not legally valid.
  • It is necessary to process personal data of the parties of a contract, provided that it is directly related to the establishment or performance of the contract.
  • It is necessary for the data controller to fulfill his/her legal obligation.
  • The data has been made public by the data subject himself/herself.
  • Data processing is necessary for the establishment, exercise, or protection of a right.
  • Data processing is necessary for the legitimate interests of the data controller, provided that it does not harm the fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject.
The existence of multiple legal bases in Turkey provides businesses with far more flexibility than the rigid, consent-first model in Azerbaijan.

3.4. Regulatory Architectures and Registration Obligations

The difference between the regulatory structures is profound:
  • Azerbaijan: Regulation is conducted under the leadership of a ministry and with the involvement of state security services. This reflects state control and national security priorities rather than independence.
  • Turkey: It is regulated by an independent Personal Data Protection Authority (KVKK) with administrative and financial autonomy. This structure is closer to the EU model.
Registration requirements also reflect this philosophical difference:
  • Azerbaijan: Mandatory state registration of "personal data information systems" is required before processing. This is a technical and infrastructure-focused approach.
  • Turkey: With some exceptions, data controllers must register with the Data Controllers' Registry Information System (VERBİS) before processing. This is a corporate and activity-focused approach.

3.5. Cross-Border Data Transfer Regimes: A Comparison of National Security and Adequacy

The two countries approach cross-border data transfers fundamentally differently:
  • Azerbaijan (Article 14): It is based on a dual test: (1) not posing a threat to national security and (2) the adequacy of the recipient country's laws. Consent is presented as a primary way to bypass these tests. The ambiguity of the "national security" criterion creates an unpredictable risk for businesses.
  • Turkey (Article 9): It adopts a more structured, EU-style approach. One of the following conditions is required for transfer: (a) explicit consent, (b) the recipient country being on the KVKK's list of "countries with adequate protection," or (c) the use of approved safeguards such as standard contractual clauses or binding corporate rules, with the approval of the KVKK Board. Turkey's framework offers more predictability for businesses through mechanisms like standard contracts.
Post Tags :
Share this post :