Investing In... 2026

Last Updated January 20, 2026

Azerbaijan

Law and Practice

Authors



MGB Law Offices was established in 1995 and is an independent full-practice business law firm in Baku, Azerbaijan. The firm specialises in corporate and business transactions, including mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures, foreign investments, cross-border finance and telecommunications. Its expertise spans various sectors, serving blue-chip multinationals, financial institutions and businesses in energy, healthcare, retail, telecoms and logistics. As a pioneer in supporting foreign investors in Azerbaijan, MGB Law Offices collaborates effectively with regional, English and American law firms. Its litigation team adeptly represents international clients in commercial, tax and employment disputes before local courts. The firm is recognised by Chambers and Partners and other legal directories as a top-tier firm.

Azerbaijan operates a civil law system grounded in codified legislation, with the Constitution serving as the supreme legal act. The Civil Code is the principal source governing private law relations, company law, contracts, property, secured transactions and commercial activities. Sectoral laws (the Law on Securities Market, Law on Licences and Permits, Law on Banks, etc) complement the Code and provide the regulatory infrastructure for businesses operating in the jurisdiction.

The judiciary comprises courts of general jurisdiction, specialised courts (including those for commercial disputes), appellate courts and the Supreme Court as the highest appellate instance as a cassation instance. Judicial review of normative acts is vested in the Constitutional Court. Administrative bodies – most notably the Ministry of Economy, State Tax Service, State Service for Antimonopoly and Consumer Market Control (the “Competition Authority”) and Central Bank of Azerbaijan – play an active role in supervising compliance in their respective spheres.

For foreign investors, the system offers an adequate legal environment with investment protections embedded directly in primary legislation, equal treatment of local and foreign investors, and access to courts and commercial arbitration. Azerbaijan is a contracting state to key multilateral treaties, including the New York Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards (1948), enabling the enforceability of foreign arbitral decisions.

Azerbaijan does not maintain a standalone FDI screening regime and does not require foreign investors to undergo a national security type or foreign ownership review as a condition for market entry. Instead, foreign investment operates within a general investment framework built around several core statutes that apply equally to domestic and international investors.

Investment Activity Law (2022)

The Law on Investment Activity (No 551-VIQ, 22 June 2022) constitutes the principal instrument governing investment operations. It applies to all investment activities carried out in Azerbaijan by both local and foreign investors (Article 3.1). The law sets out the overarching rights and guarantees for investors, including non-discrimination, protection of property rights, access to dispute-resolution mechanisms and freedom to repatriate profits.

Article 6 establishes a suite of state support and promotion measures designed to encourage both domestic and foreign capital inflows. These include:

  • tax and state-payment incentives, applied through special regimes or investment promotion certificates;
  • preferential financing, including concessional loans for qualifying projects;
  • special economic zones, industrial parks and other preferential regimes to host investment projects;
  • expansion of public–private partnership (PPP) mechanisms;
  • advisory and informational support via online investment platforms, including access to investment project pipelines and potential local partners; and
  • additional state measures aimed at strengthening Azerbaijan’s overall investment climate.

Law on Public–Private Partnership (2022)

The Law on Public–Private Partnership (No 691-VIQ, 9 December 2022) regulates relations arising in the implementation of PPP projects. It covers infrastructure development, public service delivery, and the creation and operation of facilities required for those services. The law governs the interactions between the state, the authorised state body, the public partner, private partners and bidders. PPP has become a key channel for attracting foreign investors to large-scale infrastructure, utilities, healthcare and transport projects.

Law on the Use of Renewable Energy Sources in Electricity Production (2021)

The Law on Renewable Energy (No 339-VIQ, 31 May 2021) provides a comprehensive framework aimed at expanding renewable generation capacity and deepening private sector participation in the energy transition. It outlines state support mechanisms, rules for producer selection, tariff determination and procedures for allocating land for renewable projects. The law signals a long-term strategic commitment to creating an investment-friendly renewable energy ecosystem, an area where foreign investors have shown substantial interest.

Azerbaijan’s near-term outlook is characterised by moderating but positive growth, continued fiscal and external buffers from hydrocarbons, and a strong policy focus on diversifying into non-oil sectors. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) projects real GDP growth of around 3% in 2025, with inflation expected to remain within the Central Bank’s target band. The World Bank expects medium-term growth to converge towards approximately 2.5% as declining crude output is increasingly offset by expanding non-energy activities. The government’s Socio-Economic Development Strategy 2022–26 explicitly targets higher FDI inflows – particularly into non-oil sectors – through structural reforms, improved investment facilitation and the development of priority industries such as energy transition, logistics, water infrastructure and agriculture.

The year 2025 has seen a continuation of large-scale strategic foreign investment, particularly in energy, renewables and infrastructure. The most significant project is the USD2.9 billion expansion of the Shah Deniz gas and condensate field, led by BP and its international consortium partners. This programme, aimed at developing low-pressure gas reserves, will extend plateau production and underpin Azerbaijan’s long-term export commitments to regional and European markets. Its scale and technical complexity make it one of the region’s largest upstream undertakings and a central pillar of Azerbaijan’s external sector resilience.

A second major development is BP’s move into utility-scale solar generation in the Karabakh region, through the construction of a 240 MW solar power plant valued at approximately USD200 million. Scheduled for completion by mid-2027, the project is strategically positioned as both a post-conflict reconstruction initiative and a flagship of the government’s green energy corridor vision. It demonstrates a growing appetite among international energy companies to participate in the redevelopment of newly reintegrated territories.

Renewables more broadly continue to attract significant Gulf-based investment. The 240 MW Khizi–Absheron wind project being implemented by ACWA Power (Saudi Arabia) marks one of the largest wind-energy installations in the South Caucasus. In parallel, Azerbaijan is progressing a broader 1,000 MW renewable-energy programme with Masdar (UAE), including wind, solar and integrated green-hydrogen development. These projects collectively reinforce Azerbaijan’s positioning as an emerging regional clean energy hub and illustrate sustained, high-value interest from long-term institutional investors.

The year 2025 has also seen important movement in water infrastructure investment, an area designated as a national strategic priority. The government has advanced a large desalination plant project on the Absheron Peninsula, awarded under a PPP structure to a foreign-led consortium. Designed to address long-term water security challenges, the facility will combine seawater desalination with modern transmission infrastructure and represents one of the largest non-energy infrastructure investments in the country. Its scale, financing model and international participation signal a broadening of Azerbaijan’s FDI profile beyond hydrocarbons.

Overall, Azerbaijan’s political environment remains stable, with policymaking strongly centralised and government priorities clearly aligned around diversification, infrastructure renewal and regional integration. For foreign investors, the combination of macroeconomic stability, targeted state support measures, robust demand for large-scale infrastructure and an expanding renewables pipeline creates a favourable near-term outlook. While structural reforms in competition, state-owned enterprise (SOE) governance and regulatory transparency are still evolving, sectoral opportunities, particularly in energy transition, water management, logistics and reconstruction, continue to anchor Azerbaijan’s attractiveness for strategic inbound investment.

M&A transactions in Azerbaijan typically follow standard structures, with share acquisitions being the most commonly used approach for both foreign and domestic investors. For private companies, transactions generally involve the direct transfer of participatory interests from existing owners to the acquirer. Asset acquisitions are used where the buyer seeks to acquire specific business units or isolate liabilities, but they are less common than share purchases.

The new Competition Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan, effective from 1 July 2024, is a central factor in determining transaction structure. It introduces a comprehensive framework governing mergers and acquisitions and defines “economic concentration” broadly. Article 26 identifies the following as concentrations:

  • merger or combination of two or more independent economic entities or their separate fields of activity;
  • acquisition of control over voting shares in a joint stock company JSC at the thresholds of 25%, 50% and 75%;
  • acquisition of ownership in a joint stock company (LLC) at one-third, 50% and 75%;
  • transfer of more than 20% of the balance sheet value of main assets or intangible assets;
  • long-term or indefinite rights over key assets;
  • acquisition of significant assets of financial institutions;
  • acquiring rights to perform entrepreneurial or executive functions of another entity;
  • acquisition of more than 50% of voting shares in foreign entities operating in the same or a related market;
  • joint management arrangements affecting market behaviour; and
  • creation of joint ventures jointly controlled by founders.

These thresholds guide foreign investors in structuring transactions, particularly where incremental purchases or minority investments may inadvertently trigger concentration rules.

The Competition Code serves as the primary framework for reviewing domestic concentrations. Transactions falling within Article 26 must be notified to and approved by the Competition Authority before completion. This applies where mergers, acquisitions of control, significant asset transfers or joint venture formations meet the Competition Code’s thresholds. The regulator assesses whether the concentration could distort competition or strengthen an existing dominant position.

Beyond merger control rules, corporate registration requirements are essential:

  • for LLCs, changes in ownership of participatory interests must be registered with the State Tax Service under the Ministry of Economy, which maintains the official registry of companies; and
  • for JSCs, share transfers must additionally be registered with the National Depositary Centre, which records all changes in ownership of dematerialised shares.

Corporate governance requirements in Azerbaijan are primarily set out in the Civil Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan. In addition, certain regulated entities such as banks, investment companies and insurance companies must comply with mandatory corporate governance standards adopted by the Central Bank of the Republic of Azerbaijan.

Foreign investors typically establish their presence in Azerbaijan by opening a branch or representative office, or by incorporating a subsidiary in the form of an LLC or a JSC. The LLC is the most commonly used structure due to its straightforward incorporation process and comparatively lighter regulatory burden. Its internal governance is largely determined by its charter, and the Civil Code imposes fewer mandatory rules on LLCs relative to JSCs. Unlike JSCs, there is no statutory minimum charter capital for LLCs, and LLCs are not subject to Central Bank reporting requirements.

By contrast, the JSC form is subject to minimum charter capital rules under Azerbaijani law. After registration, a JSC must issue and register its shares, and its corporate governance framework is significantly more rigid, allowing less flexibility for shareholders to customise governance arrangements.

Branches and representative offices have limited interaction with Azerbaijani corporate law. They may carry out certain commercial activities but cannot engage in specific licensed sectors such as insurance.

Minority shareholders in Azerbaijan benefit from a number of statutory rights under the Civil Code. These include the right to receive dividends, to obtain information about the company’s activities, to review annual reports and financial statements, and to participate in the election of executive bodies in both LLCs and JSCs.

In LLCs and closed JSCs, minority shareholders also benefit from a right of first refusal over the sale of another shareholder’s participatory interest or shares, exercisable in proportion to their existing ownership.

The Civil Code also contains specific protections for minority shareholders in LLCs and open JSCs (OJSCs). If a shareholder seeks to acquire more than 50% of a company’s shares, they must first offer to purchase the shares of the remaining shareholders. Minority shareholders may freely decide whether to sell or retain their shares. This mechanism prevents a majority shareholder from obtaining disproportionate control without giving minority shareholders an opportunity to exit on equal terms.

Azerbaijani law does not prescribe FDI-specific disclosure obligations. However, depending on the legal form of the entity receiving the investment, certain disclosure and reporting requirements may arise.

For open joint stock companies, a transaction involving more than 25% of the value of the company’s net assets qualifies as a special significant transaction. Such transactions must be approved by the general meeting of shareholders, and information regarding the transaction must be disclosed in accordance with the company’s charter (this requirement does not apply to branch offices of foreign banks).

Additionally, members of the executive board or board of directors of a JSC must disclose relevant information before entering into any agreement concerning securities in their ownership.

Azerbaijan’s capital markets remain at an emerging stage of development, and businesses continue to rely primarily on debt and bank financings as their main sources of funding. Long-term credit facilities provided by local banks constitute the dominant financing channel for both large enterprises and SMEs, reflecting the relative depth of the banking sector compared with the still-developing debt and equity markets.

Alongside bank lending, state financial resources, including budget allocations and state-supported programmes, play an important role in funding strategic sectors and large infrastructure projects. Own funds and retained earnings also remain a significant source of corporate financing, particularly for mid-sized companies that may not have access to capital market instruments.

Access to capital markets is gradually expanding. Companies may obtain financing through the issuance of corporate bonds or equity placements, typically conducted via investment companies licensed to operate in the securities market. While still limited, capital-market financing is viewed as an increasingly viable option, particularly for companies seeking to diversify funding sources or improve financial transparency.

Regulation of Azerbaijan’s capital markets is overseen by the Central Bank of the Republic of Azerbaijan, which is responsible for supervising the securities market and establishing the rules governing the issuance, placement and public offering of investment securities. The Baku Stock Exchange (BSE) is the country’s primary trading platform for publicly traded securities.

Settlement, custody and registration of securities are carried out by the National Depository Centre, which maintains the centralised register of securities and provides depository, clearing and information disclosure services. Investors must hold a depository account with a licensed investment intermediary in order to purchase, hold or sell securities on the BSE.

Issuances in Azerbaijan may take the form of a public offering or a private placement (to fewer than 50 investors). Subscription to investment securities must be completed within three months from launch, and a placement is deemed finalised once the initial owners of the securities are registered in their depository accounts.

Foreign investment funds may operate in Azerbaijan only through a representative office, which requires prior authorisation from the Central Bank. To obtain this permit, the fund must submit detailed documentation, including:

  • information on the beneficial owner;
  • evidence of managerial experience and professional qualifications of key personnel (legalised/apostilled);
  • audited financial statements covering the period of activity;
  • the charter of the representative office;
  • the foreign fund’s charter and state-registration documents (legalised/apostilled);
  • the decision of the authorised body establishing the representative office; and
  • relevant licences and permits from the fund’s home jurisdiction.

There are no specific exemptions available to foreign investment funds. Additionally, foreign capital participation limits apply in certain regulated sectors. The Central Bank determines maximum foreign ownership levels for investors seeking to acquire shares in banks and insurance companies. Within the insurance sector, the combined participation of international financial institutions (of which Azerbaijan is a member), foreign insurers and foreign institutional investors – including banks, credit institutions, pension funds and investment funds – may not exceed 50% of the insurer’s authorised capital.

Azerbaijan operates a formal merger control regime under the Competition Code, which entered into force on 1 July 2024. The competent authority is the Competition Authority. Importantly, this framework is not an investment screening mechanism; it governs transactions irrespective of whether the acquirer is foreign or domestic, and the analysis is limited to the concentration’s effects on competition within Azerbaijan.

Transactions requiring notification are regulated under Article 27 of the Competition Code, which provides that a concentration must be notified when any of the following alternative thresholds are met:

  • dominant position – one of the undertakings involved holds a dominant position in the relevant market;
  • financial institution resale exception – a financial institution cannot dispose of shares acquired for resale within the period permitted under the Competition Code;
  • individual turnover – turnover of any participating undertaking, or the entity formed as a result of the concentration, exceeds AZN25 million (approximately USD14.7 million;
  • combined worldwide turnover – combined turnover of all parties, inside and outside Azerbaijan, exceeds AZN35 million (approximately USD20.6 million);
  • domestic turnover – one undertaking exceeds AZN15 million (approximately USD8.84 million) domestic turnover, and the other exceeds AZN5 million (approximately USD2.95 million) domestically; and
  • market share – combined turnover below financial thresholds but representing over 20% of the relevant market.

Under Article 30.3, each participating undertaking is separately responsible for filing.

Process and timelines include, first, a compliance check (ten working days), after which the Authority examines completeness and may request corrections, which must be addressed within the same ten-day period. Then, a primary investigation (30 working days) may follow. Once complete, the Authority conducts a substantive review and may:

  • leave the application unconsidered (eg, outside Article 27 or deficiencies unresolved);
  • clear the concentration; or
  • refuse approval if competition would be restricted or dominance created/strengthened.

Subsequently, the remedies stage may follow. If concerns are remediable, the Authority notifies the parties within three working days, and the parties have 15 working days, or 30 working days for extensive measures, to resolve them. Extensions can be made by the Authority. The investigation may be extended twice, each for 30 working days, to determine additional circumstances.

The review period pauses when deficiencies are identified or where other investigations or court proceedings affect the matter.

All decisions, including extensions and refusals, must be communicated within three working days. A straightforward filing can be completed within 33 working days, assuming the submission is complete and no substantive concerns arise. Moreover, the substantive criteria for merger review are yet to be determined by the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Azerbaijan.

The Competition Code contains a merger control regime, but it does not overlap with any foreign investment review. The analysis is strictly competition-based.

Under Article 28, the Authority assesses concentrations on the basis of:

  • their expected impact on market structure over the next three years;
  • the market shares of all participants;
  • whether the concentration restricts competition or creates/strengthens dominance;
  • whether efficiency-enhancing or technological benefits outweigh any restrictive effects;
  • whether consumer interests are preserved; and
  • whether equivalent benefits could be achieved through less restrictive means.

The review concerns only competitive effects in Azerbaijan, with no assessment of investor nationality or foreign investment considerations.

Where a concentration requires approval under Article 27, the Competition Authority evaluates potential competitive effects under Article 28.

Possible outcomes may include:

  • approval – granted when the concentration does not restrict competition or when efficiency-enhancing or technological benefits outweigh any restrictive effects and do not harm consumers;
  • prohibition – issued when the concentration could restrict competition, create or strengthen dominance, or otherwise adversely affect market structure; and
  • conditional approval/remedies – available when concerns can be addressed through corrective measures.

If the Authority identifies restrictions that can be corrected, it informs the applicant within three working days. Parties must implement remedies within:

  • 15 working days; or
  • 30 working days for complex measures.

Remedies may relate to eliminating anti-competitive effects, preventing the creation of dominance, or correcting structural or behavioural issues identified by the Authority.

The Competition Authority does not evaluate or block foreign investment as such. Its mandate is limited to assessing transactions that meet merger control thresholds and their competition effects within Azerbaijan. Accordingly, the regime should be viewed as antitrust merger control, not FDI screening.

The Authority may:

  • refuse a concentration;
  • approve it unconditionally;
  • approve with remedies; or
  • treat multiple transactions as a single notifiable concentration.

If a notifiable concentration is implemented without prior clearance:

  • each participating undertaking bears individual liability;
  • administrative penalties may apply;
  • the transaction may be subject to unwinding or corrective measures; and
  • the Authority may impose structural or behavioural remedies.

These consequences underscore that merger clearance is a mandatory pre-closing requirement for transactions meeting Article 27 thresholds.

Azerbaijan does not operate a dedicated foreign investment or national security review regime. Instead, foreign investors are governed by the general framework applicable to all investors under the Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan “On Investment Activity”, which expressly provides that foreign investors are entitled to a national treatment regime. Accordingly, in comparable circumstances, foreign investors and their investments must be treated no less favourably than domestic investors and their investments. Foreign investors are also treated no less favourably than other foreign investors.

This equal-treatment regime does not exclude the application of Azerbaijani laws aimed at protecting human life and health, the environment, public order, and state and economic security, provided such laws are applied without discrimination. These provisions empower the state to apply general protective measures where necessary, without creating a separate FDI-specific review mechanism.

Although there is no national security screening system targeting foreign investment, certain restrictions may arise under the Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan “On Combatting the Legalization (Laundering) of Criminally Obtained Property and the Financing of Terrorism”. This law establishes limitations for legal entities associated with high-risk jurisdictions. For example, subsidiaries or branches of financial institutions established, managed or operating in high-risk zones may be denied licences in Azerbaijan. Similarly, business relationships and financial transactions may be restricted for persons whose registration, residence or primary place of activity is located in such zones, or whose transactions are carried out through those regions.

Outside the AML/CFT framework, there is no separate notification process, no pre-investment approval requirement and no national security review authority for foreign investment.

Azerbaijani legislation does not establish a foreign investment or national security review regime. In general, foreign investments are treated equally with national entities. Therefore, (i) no statutory criteria, (ii) no sector-specific triggers, (iii) no differentiated analysis for partnerships or joint ventures, (iv) no special rules for acquisitions by foreign governments or sovereign entities, and (v) no separate treatment for non-controlling minority investments are prescribed under Azerbaijani law.

All investors are subject solely to the general legal framework governing business activities and the AML/CFT rules noted in the foregoing.

Because Azerbaijan does not operate a foreign investment or national security review regime, no remedies, conditions or commitments may be imposed specifically on foreign investors in connection with FDI.

Any obligations imposed on investors arise under general legislative frameworks, including sector-specific licensing laws, AML/CFT compliance and other generally applicable regulatory requirements.

There is no authority in Azerbaijan tasked with supervising foreign investments or conducting national security reviews of FDI. No regulator has the statutory power to block, suspend or unwind a foreign investment specifically on national security grounds.

Generally, the Ministry of Economy acts as the co-ordinating authority for the development of trade and foreign investment initiatives, but it does not supervise or review FDI transactions, nor does it exercise approval or enforcement powers in this context.

As Azerbaijan does not require prior approval for foreign investments, there are no consequences for making an investment without prior governmental clearance. Foreign investors remain subject only to the ordinary regulatory framework, including general commercial law, tax law, licensing rules where applicable and AML/CFT oversight.

As Azerbaijan does not operate a dedicated FDI regime, foreign investors are subject only to the generally applicable legal frameworks already outlined in the preceding sections, and no additional FDI-specific laws or screening mechanisms apply.

Taxation in Azerbaijan is governed by the Tax Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan, in force since 1 January 2001. Under the Tax Code, non-resident legal entities are required to establish a permanent establishment (PE) if they carry out entrepreneurial activities in Azerbaijan for at least 90 consecutive days within any 12-month period. Companies operating through a PE – as well as domestic companies – are subject to 20% profit tax, regardless of organisational form.

Non-residents that do not create a PE are taxed through withholding at source at a rate of 10% on income derived from Azerbaijani sources, without deduction of expenses.

VAT applies at a standard rate of 18% for individuals and entities that are voluntarily or mandatorily registered. Mandatory VAT registration applies where taxable transactions exceed AZN200,000 (approximately USD117,647) in any month of a 12-month period, or where the value of a single contract exceeds this threshold.

Dividends and interest received by a foreign investor from Azerbaijani sources are subject to withholding tax. A non-resident operating in Azerbaijan is taxed at source at 5% of net profit transferred from its PE.

The standard withholding tax rates are:

  • 5% on dividends; and
  • 10% on interest.

These rates may be reduced or fully eliminated under double taxation treaties, which commonly impose minimum ownership thresholds for reduced dividend rates. For example, the Azerbaijan-United Kingdom double tax agreement (DTA) limits dividend taxation to 10% if the beneficial owner holds at least 30% of the voting rights of the payer.

Azerbaijan has also acceded to the Multilateral BEPS Convention (law dated 31 May 2024). Under the Law, treaty benefits apply only if the investor meets minimum shareholding requirements and a 365-day holding period. Anti-abuse rules restrict treaty relief where dividend payments are deductible or where ownership structures have been arranged artificially.

A number of tax planning methods exist in practice, although their use is limited by anti-avoidance rules in the Tax Code. These include the following.

  • Transfer pricing: transactions between related parties may involve artificial prices. For example, an Azerbaijani company may sell goods below market value to a subsidiary in a low-tax jurisdiction, shifting profits abroad.
  • Abuse of tax incentives: certain entities, such as start-ups classified as micro or small businesses, are exempt from tax on income from innovation activities for three years. Entities operating in the Alat Free Economic Zone are exempt from withholding tax and VAT on profits related to their Free Zone activities. Holders of investment promotion certificates receive a 50% profit tax exemption for seven years.
  • Controlled foreign companies (CFCs): Azerbaijani-resident companies may use subsidiaries in offshore jurisdictions to reallocate profits through artificial transactions.
  • Treaty shopping: companies may insert intermediary entities in treaty jurisdictions without real economic activity to access reduced treaty rates.

The Tax Code includes counter-measures such as the “risky taxpayer” concept, limits on the use of intermediary entities, market value substitution for transfer pricing purposes and cancellation of benefits where dividends are treated as deductible expenses.

Azerbaijan does not impose a separate capital gains tax. Instead, income from the sale or alienation of assets, shares and property (by companies or individuals) is taxed as ordinary income.

For share transactions, if shares are sold above their nominal value, the difference between the offering price and nominal value is treated as taxable profit and subject to 20% profit tax. If shares are sold below net asset value, the difference between net asset value and nominal value is treated as taxable profit. For individuals, income is taxed at 14%. Double taxation treaties may allow the taxation of gains at lower rates.

No additional rules apply specifically to the sale of FDI, and no separate “blocker” or tax-preferred corporate vehicle regime/concept exists beyond standard corporate and tax rules.

Azerbaijan does not impose anti-avoidance rules targeted specifically at FDI. However, the Tax Code contains general anti-evasion regimes applicable to both domestic and cross-border transactions, including transfer pricing, CFC rules, thin capitalisation limits and beneficiary ownership requirements.

Transfer Pricing

Transactions must comply with the arm’s length principle. Transfer pricing rules apply to transactions between:

  • a tax resident and a non-resident that are associated;
  • a non-resident’s PE in Azerbaijan and its foreign head office, branch or representative office; and
  • a tax resident or non-resident PE and companies in low-tax jurisdictions.

If prices deviate from market value due to the relationship between parties, tax authorities may apply market prices for tax purposes.

Thin Capitalisation

Interest on loans from related or foreign parties is deductible only up to 125% of the average interbank rate. Where total foreign debt exceeds twice the net assets, interest on the excess portion is non-deductible.

Beneficiary Concept

Taxation applies to the actual beneficial owner of income rather than intermediaries lacking economic substance.

CFC Rules

Profits of foreign companies are attributable to an Azerbaijani resident shareholder where:

  • the resident owns more than 50%; and
  • the CFC’s effective tax rate is less than 75% of the Azerbaijani corporate tax rate; or
  • passive income exceeds 30% of total income.

Certain income is excluded from CFC taxation, including dividends from the CFC and profits related to its PE.

Employment relations in Azerbaijan are principally governed by the Labour Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan (in force since 1 February 1999), which establishes minimum labour standards and the rights and obligations of employers and employees.

The Labour Code applies to all workplaces registered in Azerbaijan, whether established by local or foreign legal entities. However, expatriates who are employed by a foreign legal entity under a foreign employment contract and perform their duties at that entity’s branch or representative office in Azerbaijan are not subject to the Labour Code.

Expatriate employees generally require both a work permit and a temporary residence permit. Work permits are issued by the State Migration Service. Certain categories of expatriates are exempt from this requirement, including managers and deputy managers of foreign-invested legal entities and of branches or representative offices of foreign legal entities. Foreign investors employing staff in Azerbaijan must comply with all applicable provisions of the Labour Code.

Employees have a statutory right to form and join trade unions, and to participate in collective bargaining. These arrangements are most common in the public sector, state-controlled industries and the oil and gas sector, while they are less prevalent in the private sector. A general collective agreement for 2023–25 was signed in 2023 between the Cabinet of Ministers, the Trade Unions Confederation and the National Confederation of Entrepreneurs’ Organizations.

Employee compensation in Azerbaijan is predominantly cash-based. Salaries must be paid in Azerbaijani manat (AZN) and may not be lower than the statutory minimum wage of AZN400 (approximately USD2,325). With the employee’s consent, up to 20% of salary may be paid in kind in the form of consumer goods. Equity-based compensation is not common in the jurisdiction.

Employees are entitled to paid annual leave of at least 21 calendar days, with certain specialists and managerial staff being eligible for 30 days. Unused annual leave must be compensated financially if not taken within the relevant work year.

Retirement and pension benefits are provided through the mandatory state pension system, which is funded through compulsory social insurance contributions: 22% of salary is paid by the employer and 3% by the employee.

When employment is terminated due to a change in enterprise ownership, the employer must pay severance of at least three months’ average salary.

A change of ownership of an enterprise does not terminate employment contracts. All existing labour agreements remain valid and must be honoured by the new owner. Only the contracts of certain senior personnel, such as the director, deputy directors, chief accountant and other managers performing direct administrative functions may be modified or terminated by the new owner.

The new owner may not unlawfully exercise entrepreneurial rights by dismissing employees on a mass basis without first assessing their professional qualifications and ability to continue performing their job duties. Where an employment contract is terminated, employees are entitled to the statutory notice period or, alternatively, to monetary compensation in lieu of notice. The length of notice varies according to the employee’s tenure.

The Labour Code does not contain specific rules governing the automatic transfer of employment. Employees may resign if they do not wish to continue their employment relationship following a change of ownership.

There are no works councils, consultation or collective bargaining requirements that must be satisfied to complete an acquisition or other investment transaction in Azerbaijan.

Azerbaijani legislation does not establish a dedicated authority or regulatory framework for screening foreign direct investment from an intellectual property (IP) perspective. Therefore, there is no FDI-specific IP review process.

Nevertheless, IP rights may play a significant role in transactional structures involving foreign investment, particularly in sectors where franchising, licensing, know-how transfers and technology agreements are common.

In addition, in the broader context of border and customs controls, IP right-holders may request the relevant state authority to suspend the release of pirated or counterfeit goods, which can be relevant where foreign investment involves the importation or distribution of branded products.

Azerbaijan provides IP protection under its domestic legal framework and through participation in a number of international conventions and treaties, including the Berne Convention, Madrid Protocol, Nice Agreement and Patent Cooperation Treaty. IP rights generally cover copyright, trade marks, patents, utility models and industrial designs.

Copyright protection arises automatically and does not require registration, though right-holders may voluntarily register their works with the Intellectual Property Agency of the Republic of Azerbaijan (the “Agency”). Certain categories, such as official documents, state symbols and daily news, are excluded from copyright protection.

Trade marks require registration with the Agency and are protected for ten years from the date of application. Trade marks not registered in Azerbaijan may still receive protection if covered by applicable international treaties. Signs that lack distinctiveness, are misleading, or contradict public order are ineligible for protection.

Patents similarly require registration and confirm exclusive rights over inventions for the statutory protection period. Subject matter such as discoveries, scientific theories and architectural works cannot be patented.

Azerbaijani law does not require secondary political authorisation for obtaining IP rights, the granting process follows statutory timelines and AI-generated works are not explicitly protected under current legislation.

IP right-holders may assign their rights to third parties and may seek damages, criminal sanctions, and confiscation of infringing goods in cases of violation.

Data protection is governed principally by the Law on Personal Data of 11 May 2010, which regulates the collection, processing, storage, transfer and cross-border transmission of personal data. Although the Law on Personal Data does not expressly provide for extraterritorial application, it is generally understood to apply to activities conducted within Azerbaijan.

Cross-border transmission of personal data is permitted if it does not jeopardise national security and if the receiving jurisdiction ensures a level of legal protection equivalent to Azerbaijani law. Where such protection is lacking, cross-border transfer may still proceed with the data subject’s consent or where necessary to protect the individual’s life or health.

While the Law on Personal Data does not provide for international enforcement mechanisms, violations may give rise to civil, administrative or criminal liability under Azerbaijani legislation. Potential consequences include:

  • claims for material and moral damages;
  • administrative fines of AZN300–500 (approximately USD177–295) for improper protection or management of personal data; and
  • fines of two to four times the revenue generated from unlicensed activity, or six months to seven years’ imprisonment, for operating personal data systems without a required licence.
MGB Law Offices

Rasul Rza Street 15 apt 28–30
Baku
AZ1000
Azerbaijan

+994 12 936 669; +994 50 250 2528

office@mgb-law.com www.mgb-law.com/
Author Business Card

Trends and Developments


Authors



KPMG Azerbaijan Limited is led by Seymur Niftaliyev and is part of the global KPMG network, operating in over 140 countries and territories across the world, combining strong local capability with seamless access to international expertise. The firm comprises a team of 12 lawyers, including seven women and five men, reflecting a balanced and inclusive professional environment, offering diverse legal services across multiple practice areas, including ESG, data privacy, and cybersecurity, handling pioneering transactions, such as structuring cross-border investments, advising on regulatory frameworks, establishing intra-group funding systems, and analysing financial derivatives markets. The firm is relied upon not only by multinational corporations but also by the Government. In 2024, it acted as exclusive legal adviser to the COP29 Azerbaijan Operating Company and in 2025 as exclusive legal adviser for the World Urban Forum 13. The firm advises on Azerbaijan’s first artificial island, a landmark mixed-use development, further demonstrating its unmatched credibility, expertise, and leadership in complex projects.

Article by Author 1 – “Disclosure of Beneficial Ownership: Key Amendments to Azerbaijan’s Law on State Register”

On 15 May 2025, a new law (“Law”) came into force, amending the Law “On State Registration and State Register of Legal Entities” dated December 12, 2003, No. 560-IIQ (“Law on State Register”) as well as several other related laws. This reform introduces robust beneficial ownership disclosure requirements for legal entities and representative or branch offices of foreign legal entities, marking a crucial step toward enhanced corporate transparency and alignment with international anti-money laundering (AML) standards.

This article provides a comprehensive overview of the key amendments introduced by the Law, including the definition of beneficial ownership, the scope of disclosure obligations, verification procedures, and compliance timelines. In addition, it explores the practical implications for companies operating in Azerbaijan, particularly in managing complex ownership structures, meeting disclosure requirements, and safeguarding sensitive information. Finally, the article outlines practical steps that businesses should take to achieve timely compliance, mitigate risks, and integrate these new obligations into their governance, risk management, and compliance frameworks.

Background.

It is known that one of the main factors facilitating money laundering of criminal proceeds generated by corruption-related crimes, is the low level of transparency and corporate governance of legal persons, including their beneficial ownership. The amendments to the Law on State Register reflect a broader international trend toward increased transparency of legal entities’ ownership structures.

Globally, countries are increasingly strengthening corporate transparency frameworks to combat money laundering, corruption, and terrorist financing. The European Union Anti-Money Laundering Directives (require member states to maintain central, accurate, and up-to-date registers of beneficial owners for companies, trusts, and legal entities, ensuring access for authorities, financial intelligence units, and obligated entities. Similarly, the United Kingdom’s People with Significant Control (PSC) regime mandates companies to identify and report individuals with ultimate control. Such international practices demonstrate that transparency in ownership structures is a cornerstone of modern corporate governance and AML compliance.

Azerbaijan’s legislative reform aligns with international standards, particularly the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) recommendations, which are the basis on which all countries should meet the shared objective of tackling money laundering, terrorist financing and the financing of proliferation. While the concept of beneficial ownership is an important aspect of several international initiatives on transparency, its internationally and predominantly accepted definition was set up by the FATF.

Previously, state registration procedures required disclosure of certain corporate information, but there was no requirement to disclose the full ownership and control chain and the beneficial owner(s). As a result, complex ownership structures could obscure individuals who ultimately control or benefit from corporate activities. The Law aims to close this gap by imposing specific disclosure obligations on all legal entities, as well as branches and representative offices, thereby enhancing transparency and supporting regulatory authorities in monitoring and enforcing compliance.

Mandatory Information for Registration.

Under the new Article 5-1 of the Law on State Register ("Identification of the beneficial owner”), the following persons shall be considered the beneficial owners of a legal entity:

•       Directly or indirectly owns 10% or more of shares or voting rights in a entity,

•       Has the ability to significantly influence the entity’s decisions through contractual arrangements, or

•       If no such person can be identified, exercises effective control over the entity.

When it comes to identifying ultimate beneficial owners, control extends beyond mere shareholding, as individuals may exercise influence over a company without holding any shares directly. While the FATF often cites a 25% ownership stake as a threshold for identifying controlling shareholders, the core principle emphasizes identifying the individuals who exercise ultimate effective control, regardless of the exact percentage. Therefore, the above definition captures both ownership-based and control-based influence, ensuring that complex corporate structures, including layered ownership through other legal entities, cannot conceal the true individuals in control.

Under the revised Article 5.3.2-3 of the Law on State Register, applications for the state registration of legal entities must now include (and, where requested, substantiate with documents) the full name, date of birth, personal identification or identity-document number, citizenship, place of residence etc. of beneficial owner(s).  Furthermore,  applications for the state registration of legal entities must now also include (and, where requested, substantiate with documents) the name of every legal entity in the chain of ownership and/or control up to the beneficial owner(s), together with the country of incorporation, registration number, shareholder composition, and the percentage of each shareholder’s interest in the charter capital. Practically, this means that applicants must not only provide the names of direct shareholders but also trace the ownership structure through any intermediary legal entities, effectively revealing who ultimately controls or benefits from the company.

Finally, according to new Article 14.1.6-1 of the Law on State Register, the state register must reflect the following information for each beneficial owner of a registered entity:

•       Full name (surname, given name, patronymic)

•       Date of birth

•       Citizenship

•       Place of residence

•       Information on whether the beneficial owner is a politically exposed person (PEP), their close relative, or someone with a close relationship with a PEP.

This aligns registration requirements with the new beneficial ownership disclosure obligations, ensuring transparency and compliance with anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing regulations.

Verification of Beneficial Ownership.

New Article 14-1 of the Law on State Register establishes a detailed process for verifying beneficial ownership information submitted to the state register. Under this framework, the state registry authority submits beneficial owner data to the Financial Monitoring Service (acts as the central state authority for Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing) within 5 business days. The Financial Monitoring Service then verifies the information using open sources, requests to state bodies, and inquiries to auditors, NGOs, religious institutions, and foreign non-governmental organizations operating in Azerbaijan, ensuring comprehensive cross-checking of beneficial owner data.

If discrepancies or doubts arise regarding the accuracy of submitted data, the Financial Monitoring Service may request supporting documents from the legal entity through the state registry. The law sets timelines for submission of documents (5 business days from the request) and for forwarding the data to the Financial Monitoring Service (3 business days), ensuring prompt verification. Should the verification reveal that the beneficial owner differs from the submitted information, the state registry updates the register accordingly and notifies the entity within 3 business days.

Legal entities are obliged to respond with additional supporting documents within the specified timeframe. If they fail to do so, the state registry may update the register based on the information provided by the Financial Monitoring Service. Additionally, the entity must inform the individual identified as the beneficial owner about the change within 3 business days.

In practice, this strengthens the integrity and reliability of beneficial ownership data, provides clear procedures for resolving discrepancies, and formalizes the role of the Financial Monitoring Service in monitoring compliance, thereby enhancing transparency and supporting anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing efforts.

Central register approach and trade secret considerations.

The use of the central register approach is envisioned in FATF Recommendations 24 and 25. In particular, the Interpretive Note to Recommendation 24 indicates that countries can require company registers to obtain and hold up to date information on the companies’ beneficial ownership. The central register approach also facilitates access to beneficial ownership information by law enforcement authorities,.

In accordance with Article 4 of the Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan “On Commercial Secrecy” dated 4 December 2001, No. 224-IIQ, information on the founders (participants) of commercial legal entities and their shares in the charter capital, as well as on the beneficial owners is considered a trade secret. Thus, this information is confidential, and disclosure is strictly limited to authorized state authorities for registration and compliance purposes. Noticeably, the new Article 15.9-1 of the Law on State Register allows beneficial ownership information to be provided to the Financial Monitoring Service upon request, in line with AML/CFT obligations under the Law on Prevention of Legalization of Criminally Obtained Assets and Financing of Terrorism, reflecting the integration of beneficial ownership verification into Azerbaijan’s broader AML framework.

All other corporate information submitted to the state register is not considered a trade secret and does not enjoy the same confidentiality protections. This ensures that sensitive ownership details are safeguarded, while enabling authorities to access necessary information for regulatory oversight and anti-money laundering compliance.

At the same time, it should be also noted that, there is an emerging global trend toward broader public access to beneficial ownership information. For instance, in some jurisdictions, the general public can have access on request to beneficial ownership information if they demonstrate a legitimate interest (e.g. establishing a business relationship, a contract). In other jurisdictions, the general public can have direct access to limited beneficial ownership information or even to all the information maintained.

Deadlines for existing entities.

In addition, it should be mentioned that as per Article 12 of the Law, already registered legal entities including representative and branch offices of foreign legal entities, are required to submit information and supporting documents (in required cases) on their beneficial owners to the relevant state register authority by following dates:

•       Large enterprises (251 employees or more or an annual income of more than 30 million manats): by 31 December 2025

•       Medium-sized enterprises (51 – 250 employees or an annual income is between 3-30 million manats): by 30 June 2026

•       Small enterprises (11 – 50 employees or an annual income is up to 3 million manats): by 31 December 2026

•       Micro enterprises (up to 10 employees or an annual income of up to 200,000 manats): by 31 December 2027

According to the criteria for defining entrepreneurs as micro, small, medium or large entrepreneurs, "average number of employees" and "annual income", whichever is higher, is taken as a basis.

Entities that do not provide accurate information on beneficial owner and ownership and control chain within the prescribed deadlines may face fines on officials, from AZN 1,000 (approximately USD 590) to AZN 2,000 approximately USD 1,180) and on legal entities, from AZN 2,500 approximately USD 1,475) to AZN 3,000 (approximately USD 1,770).

Practical challenges.

Large multinational organizations frequently have multi layered ownership chains that stretch across countries and legal systems. In such cases, shell companies and intermediary legal persons can obscure who truly controls the enterprise, making it time intensive and resource heavy to identify ultimate beneficial owners, especially when jurisdictions vary in their disclosure requirements, thresholds, or definitions of control. The new disclosure requirements may present practical challenges for tracing ownership through complex or cross-border corporate structures as well as ensuring confidentiality of sensitive personal information while meeting regulatory disclosure requirements.

Ultimately, while the reforms strengthen transparency and regulatory compliance, companies must proactively invest in systems, processes, and expertise to navigate the practical challenges of ultimate beneficial owner identification and reporting efficiently and accurately. Measures may include:

•       Conducting a full check of ownership structures to identify direct and indirect shareholders.

•       Implementing internal controls to track changes in ownership or control in real-time.

•       Engaging external legal and compliance advisors for guidance on cross-border entities, document verification, and ultimate beneficial owner reporting.

•       Maintaining data security and confidentiality to comply with trade secret protections while meeting disclosure obligations.

These steps will help entities reduce risks, streamline compliance processes, and strengthen corporate governance in line with international standards.

Conclusion.

The amendments to the Law on State Register mark a new era of transparency and corporate accountability. By requiring detailed disclosure of beneficial ownership and ownership chains, the reform strengthens the integrity of the corporate sector, aligns national practices with international standards, and enhances the ability of authorities to combat financial crime.

For existing entities, timely compliance is critical to avoid legal penalties and operational disruptions. Multinational corporations, foreign branches and representative offices, and complex corporate groups should prioritize internal processes to identify beneficial owners, gather required documentation, and submit accurate information within the prescribed deadlines.

The reform also positions Azerbaijan among jurisdictions with corporate transparency regimes, enhancing its international reputation and signaling its commitment to combating financial crime. By improving access to reliable ownership data, the reform also strengthens investor confidence, facilitates cross-border transactions, and reduces the risk of corporate misuse for illicit purposes. The phased compliance deadlines, combined with the confidentiality protections for sensitive ownership data, provide a practical framework for businesses to implement the new requirements while ensuring regulatory compliance and operational continuity.

Article by Author 2 – “Supreme Court Decision on Foreign Arbitral Awards: Shaping Public Policy and Arbitration in Azerbaijan”

1.       Introduction

This article examines a recent decision of the Supreme Court of Azerbaijan, Decision No. 10-2(102)-14/2025, dated 8 August 2025, regarding the recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award. The decision addresses common issues in enforcement proceedings, including public policy, the scope of the arbitration agreement, and the statute of limitations. These issues are frequently raised by parties resisting enforcement, making the decision a significant reference point for both domestic and international practitioners.

The decision is especially noteworthy against the backdrop of Azerbaijan’s recent arbitration reforms. The country has actively modernized its arbitration framework through legislation and procedural amendments, signaling a strong policy commitment to arbitration as a reliable method for dispute resolution. By examining the Supreme Court’s reasoning, one can better understand how Azerbaijani courts approach arbitration today.

For investors, contractors, and commercial parties operating in Azerbaijan, the case provides valuable guidance. It illustrates how courts balance domestic legal principles with international arbitration standards, and it reinforces the country’s ambition to be an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction. The judgment, read alongside recent legislative reforms, demonstrates a clear alignment of Azerbaijani practice with international norms.

2.       Background of the Dispute

On 29 February 2024, a tribunal issued an arbitral award in a dispute between Ludwig Pfeiffer Hoch-Und Tiefbau GmbH & Co. KG (the “Claimant”) and the Regional Water Melioration Service (the “Respondent”), a public legal entity of the Republic of Azerbaijan. The Claimant is an international construction and engineering company, while the Respondent is a state-related body responsible for water management infrastructure.

The dispute arose from a large-scale infrastructure contract involving the design, supply, installation, and commissioning of water supply and wastewater systems in the Yardımlı district of Azerbaijan. Such projects are typically complex and long-term, which often increases the risk of contractual disagreements. As is common in international construction contracts, the parties agreed in advance on a dispute resolution mechanism.

Under Clause 46.5 of the Special Conditions of the contract, all disputes arising out of or related to the contract were to be resolved by arbitration under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. This clause reflected the parties’ intention to resolve disputes outside national courts, relying instead on a neutral and internationally recognized arbitration framework.

After considering the parties’ written submissions and evidence, the arbitral tribunal accepted the Claimant’s claims and ordered the Respondent to make payment. Following the issuance of the award, the Claimant applied to the Supreme Court of Azerbaijan for recognition and enforcement of the foreign arbitral award. The Respondent opposed the application and requested that the Court refuse recognition.

3.       Respondent’s Objections to Recognition

The Respondent’s objections focused mainly on two grounds: public policy and the statute of limitations. The core of the Respondent’s argument was that enforcing the arbitral award in Azerbaijan would violate public policy of State. According to the Respondent, this was not a minor procedural issue but a matter of public importance.

First, the Respondent argued that the arbitral tribunal should not have continued the proceedings because the Claimant’s claims were allegedly time-barred. In simple terms, the Respondent claimed that statue of limitations had been violated by the Claimant to bring its claims. If this argument were accepted, the claims would have been dismissed regardless of their substantive merits.

Because Azerbaijani law governed the contract, the Respondent argued that the arbitral tribunal should have applied Azerbaijani limitation periods. In the Respondent’s view, the tribunal’s failure to apply these limitation rules correctly constituted a serious legal error. Since the statute of limitations is one of the mandatory legal norms under Azerbaijani legislation, this failure also amounted to a breach of public policy. The Respondent further contended that such an error reached the threshold of a public policy violation. Alternatively, it was argued that a breach of the statute of limitations effectively extends the underlying agreement and, consequently, the scope of the arbitration agreement, which would also constitute a violation of Article 476.1.1.3 of the Civil Procedural Code.

The Respondent also challenged the manner in which the arbitration had been initiated. The arbitration clause referred only to arbitration under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules and did not name a specific arbitral institution. On this basis, the Respondent argued that the parties intended an ad hoc arbitration and not one administered by the Permanent Court of Arbitration, thereby rendering the arbitral process defective.

4.       the Court’s Approach to Public Policy

One of the most striking aspects of the Court’s decision was its decision to seek an expert opinion from the Azerbaijani Arbitration Association. The Court asked for guidance on how public policy is generally understood in international arbitration practice. This step demonstrated the Court’s willingness to look beyond domestic law and consider international standards.

The Court confirmed that public policy must be interpreted narrowly in recognition and enforcement proceedings. According to the Court, refusal to recognize an arbitral award should occur only in exceptional circumstances. This approach reflects a widely accepted international principle that favors enforcement of arbitral awards which is in line with the requirements of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958).

The Court explained that when recognizing arbitral awards, the public policy rule is interpreted narrowly and its application is limited to exceptional cases. Recognition or enforcement of an arbitral award is refused not where it contradicts any legal grounds related to the state’s political, economic, or legal system in general, but only when it violates the fundamental legal foundations (principles) that form the basis of those systems.

Referring to approaches taken in foreign jurisdictions, the Court aligned Azerbaijani practice with international trends. On this basis, it concluded that the arbitral tribunal’s approach to calculating the limitation period, even if different from Azerbaijani court practice, could not be regarded as a violation of public policy. Thus, the court refused the grounds raised by the respondent and granted recognition and enforcement of arbitral award.

5.       Scope of the Arbitration Agreement

The Court also addressed the Respondent’s objections relating to the scope of the arbitration agreement on Article 476.1.1.3 of Civil Procedural Code.  As per the Article,  where the award has been rendered in respect of a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the arbitration agreement, or where the award contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement or the claims submitted (provided that, if the decisions on matters covered by the arbitration agreement or the claims submitted can be separated from those not so covered, the parts of the award containing decisions on matters covered by the arbitration agreement or the claims submitted may be recognized and enforced), the court can refuse its recognition and enforcement.

The Court noted that the arbitral tribunal had already confirmed its competence and jurisdiction in a preliminary ruling. Importantly, the Respondent did not challenge that ruling during the arbitral proceedings themselves. As a result, the Court held that these objections could not be raised again at the recognition and enforcement stage.

6.       Unclear Definition of Public Policy

Although the Court strongly endorsed a restrictive interpretation of public policy, it did not provide a detailed explanation of the concept under Azerbaijani procedural law. This lack of detailed guidance leaves room for future debate. Public policy remains a flexible but uncertain concept.

As per Article 476.1.2.2 of Civil Procedural Code, the court can refuse the recognition of the award if the recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award that are contrary to the Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan or to public policy, that is, to legal norms which, by their nature, are imperative, universal, and of special public importance, and which constitute the fundamental legal foundations (principles) of the political, economic, and legal system of the Republic of Azerbaijan.

This wording raises several unresolved questions. First, the separate reference to the Constitution alongside public policy creates uncertainty as to whether constitutional compliance will be treated as part of public policy or as an independent ground for refusal. Treating it as an independent ground could potentially conflict with Article V of the New York Convention which gives limited grounds to states to refuse recognition and enforcement.

Second, the definition appears to limit public policy to legal norms only. This raises the question of whether public policy should remain flexible enough to develop beyond strictly defined legal rules. Since the former Law “on International Arbitration” (No. 757-IQ dated 18th of November 1999) has been repealed, Azerbaijani courts now play a central role in shaping public policy through case law.

Previously, Article 36.1(b)(ii) of the former Law “on International Arbitration” referred to the “legislation of the Republic of Azerbaijan” as the relevant standard for refusing recognition of a foreign arbitral award, rather than explicitly mentioning public policy. This formulation created ambiguity, as it was unclear whether courts should base their decisions on general legislation or fundamental principles of public policy when deciding whether to refuse enforcement. In 2005, the reference in the Law was amended to the “Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan,” (Law “on Amendment to Law “on International Arbitration”” No.915-IIQD dated 10th of May 2005) which, while providing a clearer benchmark, also introduced a new source of potential uncertainty. The shift highlighted an ongoing tension between statutory rules, constitutional compliance, and the broader concept of public policy in international arbitration. To address these challenges and provide more practical guidance, the recent legislative reforms introduced a detailed and explicit public policy ground for refusing recognition. By doing so, the aim is to assist courts in interpreting public policy consistently, clarifying the circumstances in which recognition of a foreign arbitral award may legitimately be denied, and ensuring that the application of this ground is aligned with international standards. This development is particularly important for international parties and investors, as it strengthens predictability and reduces the risk of arbitrary refusal, contributing to a more arbitration-friendly environment in Azerbaijan.

7.       Statute of Limitations: An Open Question

The Court acknowledged that the statute of limitations was central to the Respondent’s objections. However, it did not clarify which limitation rules apply in arbitration proceedings. Nor did it explain how the applicable law governing limitation periods should be determined.

Most importantly, the Court did not address whether an incorrect application of limitation rules could, by itself, amount to a public policy violation. This omission limits the practical guidance offered by the decision. Parties may therefore continue to raise limitation arguments without clear judicial direction.

Under Azerbaijani law, limitation periods are regulated by the Civil Code and are generally regarded as part of substantive law rather than procedural law. Further judicial clarification would help determine how these substantive rules interact with arbitration proceedings governed by international standards.

8.       The Current Trends in the Market

The decision should be viewed within the broader context of significant reforms in Azerbaijani arbitration law. In late 2023, Azerbaijan adopted a new Law “on Arbitration” (No. 1077-VIQ dated 23th of December 2023), fundamentally modernizing its arbitration framework. For the first time, the law created a unified regime for both domestic and international arbitration.

The new law clarified the validity of arbitration agreements and strengthened the role of courts in supporting arbitration. These changes were designed to align Azerbaijani law with international standards, particularly the UNCITRAL Model Law with the amendments adopted in 2006. As a result, parties now enjoy greater legal certainty when choosing arbitration.

The reform package was further reinforced by amendments to the Civil Procedural Code (Law “on Changes to Civil Procedural Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan” No. 1078-VIQD, dated 26th of December 2023), which expressly regulate court involvement in arbitration-related matters. Courts are now empowered to assist arbitral tribunals and apply clearer procedures for recognition and enforcement. This reduces procedural uncertainty and increases predictability for parties.

The adoption of the Law “on Private Enforcement Officers” (No. 248-VIIQ, dated 14th of July 2025) further strengthens the post-award phase of arbitration. By introducing private enforcement mechanisms alongside state enforcement, Azerbaijan has increased the practical enforceability of arbitral awards.

Another important development is the establishment of the Baku Arbitration Center. In October 2024, the Center introduced its institutional arbitration rules, a model arbitration clause, and an official website. The Center reported its first case submission in February 2026, demonstrating growing confidence in institutional arbitration.

Together, these reforms and institutional developments confirm Azerbaijan’s intention to position itself as an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces this objective by emphasizing that refusal of recognition must remain exceptional.

9.       Conclusion

Overall, the Supreme Court’s decision sends a positive signal to the arbitration community. By confirming a high threshold for refusing recognition of foreign arbitral awards, the Court aligns Azerbaijani practice with international standards. This approach promotes legal certainty and predictability.

At the same time, important questions remain unresolved, particularly concerning the statute of limitations and its relationship with public policy. Future case law will be necessary to clarify these issues.

Nevertheless, when viewed together with recent legislative reforms and institutional developments, the decision reflects Azerbaijan’s ongoing shift toward greater acceptance of arbitration and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.

KPMG Azerbaijan

Port Baku,
South Tower 153,
Neftchilar avenue,
Baku,
Azerbaijan AZ1010

+994 (12) 404 89 10

+994 (12) 404 89 14

info@kpmglaw.az https://kpmglaw.az/
Author Business Card

Law and Practice

Authors



MGB Law Offices was established in 1995 and is an independent full-practice business law firm in Baku, Azerbaijan. The firm specialises in corporate and business transactions, including mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures, foreign investments, cross-border finance and telecommunications. Its expertise spans various sectors, serving blue-chip multinationals, financial institutions and businesses in energy, healthcare, retail, telecoms and logistics. As a pioneer in supporting foreign investors in Azerbaijan, MGB Law Offices collaborates effectively with regional, English and American law firms. Its litigation team adeptly represents international clients in commercial, tax and employment disputes before local courts. The firm is recognised by Chambers and Partners and other legal directories as a top-tier firm.

Trends and Developments

Authors



KPMG Azerbaijan Limited is led by Seymur Niftaliyev and is part of the global KPMG network, operating in over 140 countries and territories across the world, combining strong local capability with seamless access to international expertise. The firm comprises a team of 12 lawyers, including seven women and five men, reflecting a balanced and inclusive professional environment, offering diverse legal services across multiple practice areas, including ESG, data privacy, and cybersecurity, handling pioneering transactions, such as structuring cross-border investments, advising on regulatory frameworks, establishing intra-group funding systems, and analysing financial derivatives markets. The firm is relied upon not only by multinational corporations but also by the Government. In 2024, it acted as exclusive legal adviser to the COP29 Azerbaijan Operating Company and in 2025 as exclusive legal adviser for the World Urban Forum 13. The firm advises on Azerbaijan’s first artificial island, a landmark mixed-use development, further demonstrating its unmatched credibility, expertise, and leadership in complex projects.

Compare law and practice by selecting locations and topic(s)

{{searchBoxHeader}}

Select Topic(s)

loading ...
{{topic.title}}

Please select at least one chapter and one topic to use the compare functionality.