Uzbekistan has introduced some amendments to its economic and administrative procedural legislation, affecting both court administration and the conduct of judicial proceedings.[1]

The key changes concern extraterritorial jurisdiction, preliminary hearings in administrative cases, participation of public authorities in court proceedings, protection of legitimate reliance and certain procedural costs.

1. Extraterritorial jurisdiction is introduced

In economic proceedings, the parties may agree to change territorial jurisdiction, including by opting for extraterritorial jurisdiction.

Where such an agreement is in place, the claim must still be filed with the economic court that would ordinarily have territorial jurisdiction under the applicable rules. The court that hears the case is then selected through an automated information system, excluding the ordinarily competent court. The claimant must attach evidence of the parties’ agreement on extraterritorial jurisdiction to the claim.

A similar mechanism is introduced in administrative proceedings. An applicant may request extraterritorial jurisdiction. In such cases, the application or complaint is filed with the court that would otherwise have territorial jurisdiction, while the court that will hear the case is selected through an automated information system, excluding the court that would ordinarily be competent. The request for extraterritorial jurisdiction must be attached to the application or complaint.

2. Preliminary hearings are introduced in administrative cases

A preliminary hearing will be held when preparing cases challenging decisions, actions or inaction of administrative authorities, citizens’ self-government bodies and their officials.

The hearing must be conducted within 20 days after the application is received. This period is not included in the statutory period for considering the case on the merits.

At the preliminary hearing, the judge may:

• clarify the applicant’s claims and the respondent’s objections;
• address deficiencies in the application;
• identify evidence to be submitted by the parties; and
• make a preliminary legal assessment of procedural issues, including the proper parties to the case.

The judge may not express a final view on the merits at this stage.

Following the preliminary hearing, the court may leave the application without consideration, approve a settlement agreement or schedule the case for trial.

3. Principle of legitimate reliance receives express legal protection

The amendments expressly protect a person who acted in good faith in reliance on the legality of a decision of an administrative authority or an action of its official (principle of legitimate reliance).

Where such reliance is legally protected, termination of the relevant public-law relationship by a court judgment should not result in the person being deprived of property or suffering other serious consequences.

The specific grounds and procedure for such protection are to be determined by legislation.

4. Participation of administrative authorities becomes explicitly mandatory

When a decision, action or inaction of an administrative authority or its official is challenged, the participation of the relevant official or its representative in the hearing becomes explicitly mandatory.

If they fail to appear, the hearing must generally be adjourned. Where the absence is not considered justified, the court may impose a judicial fine.

The court may nevertheless proceed without the official or representative if their absence does not prevent a full and proper determination of the case.

5. Administrative courts may hold persons administratively liable

The amendments expressly empower administrative courts to consider certain administrative offence cases identified during the hearing of an administrative case.

The Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan on Administrative Liability now specifically provides that administrative courts may consider offences under:

• Article 180 — Contempt of court; and
• Article 181 — Failure to take measures in response to a court’s special decision (resolution).

If, in the course of proceedings, the court identifies elements of these offences, it may consider the issue of bringing the relevant person to administrative liability and issue a separate decision.

Such a decision may be appealed or challenged by protest.

6. Additional grounds for refund of state duty are introduced

The amendments provide for the return of state duty where an application is left without consideration:

• because insolvency proceedings have been commenced against the respondent and the claim must be considered within those proceedings; or
• following the results of a preliminary hearing.

[1] See the Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan “On Introducing Amendments and Additions to Certain Legislative Acts of the Republic of Uzbekistan Aimed at Creating More Favourable Conditions for Citizens and Entrepreneurs when Applying to Economic and Administrative Courts and Improving Access to Justice” No. LRU-1165 dated August 14, 2026.

This Legal Alert is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Market participants should consult qualified legal counsel to address specific legal and regulatory issues.

PDF version of this publication is available at the link below.