Uzbek Parliament Returns Migration Bill to Committee
Tashkent, Uzbekistan (UzDaily.uz) — The Legislative Chamber of the Oliy Majlis declined to adopt a bill aimed at improving migration legislation during its second reading on 11 August 2026, sending the document back to committee following extensive debate and criticism over proposed fines.
The presiding officer emphasized that rules increasing legal liability must be thoroughly prepared so that no questions arise during further consideration, including in the Senate.
The bill had previously received conceptual approval in its first reading on 22 July 2026. Ahead of the second reading, the working group held five meetings with representatives of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
The proposed legislation introduces amendments to Articles 223 and 225 of the Code of Administrative Responsibility, which govern violations of passport system rules and stay requirements in Uzbekistan. One primary objective of the document is aligning existing rules with new registration procedures for citizens, foreign nationals, and stateless persons, as well as strengthening enforcement in the migration sector.
The bill proposed clarifying the elements of offenses, establishing distinct liability for officials, and imposing stricter sanctions for repeat offenses committed within a year.
Lawmakers raised major objections regarding the size of the proposed fines. In particular, for certain violations of registration rules in hotels and medical facilities, proposed fines were set to rise from 5–10 times the base calculating amount (BCA) up to 30 times the BCA, or 13.2 million soums, for a first offense, and up to 40 times the BCA, or 17.6 million soums, for a repeat violation.
Deputy Zukhriddin Mavlonov noted that many recent laws introduce new fines or increase existing penalties. He drew attention to the disparity between the proposed fines and the actual earnings of medical facility staff.
He pointed out that a doctor's monthly salary may range from 6 million to 7 million soums, meaning the proposed fine could exceed an employee's monthly income several times over.
Representatives of the relevant committee defended the higher penalties, explaining that strict measures are needed to enforce control over hotels, medical institutions, rest homes, and other organizations required to enter guest information into the automated E-mehmon system.
Committee members stated that details are frequently omitted from the system, leading to discrepancies in statistical and operational data. Such violations were noted as being particularly prevalent among hotels, medical facilities, and private clinics.
Further objections were raised during discussions on Article 223 of the Code of Administrative Responsibility. Under the draft text, the fine for citizens remained at 5 times the BCA for a given violation, while the fine for officials was set at 20 times the BCA.
Speaker of the Legislative Chamber Nuriddin Ismoilov questioned the justification for such a gap, stating that sanctions for identical offenses should not differ significantly without clear grounds.
Deputy Saidullo Azimov explained the differentiation as reflecting the principle of individualized punishment and differing financial capacities between ordinary citizens and organization leaders. He argued that higher fines for officials serve as an essential deterrent.
A representative of the relevant committee noted that any individual disagreeing with a fine could appeal to a court. Under Article 33 of the Code of Administrative Responsibility, a court maintains the authority to reduce penalties based on a party's financial standing.
However, the presiding officer highlighted a lack of supporting analysis justifying the proposed sanction levels, specifically asking how many such violations were committed by citizens and legal entities in 2025.
Additional concerns emerged over Article 225, which governs stay rules for foreign nationals and stateless persons. Deputies observed that a fine of 40 times the BCA, or 17.6 million soums, would apply equally to an organization failing to register one or two guests as it would to an entity committing violations involving a far larger group of people.
Disagreements also arose over the legal interpretation of Articles 223 and 225. Bill drafters explained that Article 223 applies to Uzbek citizens and permanent foreign residents, whereas Article 225 applies to foreign nationals temporarily present in the country.
The presiding officer noted that the proposed draft failed to draw this distinction clearly enough.
Further questions centered on the phrase "procedure for receiving" foreign nationals used in Article 225. The presiding officer indicated that while regulations exist for registration, no separately established procedure for receiving foreign nationals was present in the sub-legislative act.
Deputy Tuychi Yokubov suggested eliminating fixed sanction amounts in favor of maximum penalty ceilings. He proposed using language such as "up to 20 times the BCA" and "up to 40 times the BCA" to allow for varying circumstances surrounding violations.
He also noted that technical glitches could prevent guest details from being uploaded into the E-mehmon system, emphasizing that such factors must be taken into account when assigning liability.
Lawmakers also debated who directly carries out registration in hotels and medical facilities. It was noted that lower-level staff often handle the task, whereas the bill places legal liability directly on the presiding official.
Following the discussion, representatives of the committee acknowledged the need to re-evaluate the proposed sanction amounts.
As a result, the Legislative Chamber declined to pass the bill in its second reading and returned it to committee for revisions.
The presiding officer reiterated that the document had generated numerous objections within party factions and called on developers to thoroughly refine the liability provisions prior to the next stage of consideration.
The bill was initially approved in its first reading on 22 July 2026.
