This arbitration, administered by the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) under the 1996 United Kingdom–Azerbaijan Bilateral Investment Treaty and the 2022 ICSID Arbitration Rules, centers on investments in Azerbaijan's real estate sector. The proceedings have been marked by a highly contentious dispute over provisional measures, stemming from actions taken by Azerbaijani authorities against Mr. Eran Muduroglu, a key representative and witness for the Claimants. The core of the procedural conflict involved a series of requests by the Claimants for the Tribunal to order provisional measures against Azerbaijan. The Claimants alleged that the Respondent was engaging in a campaign of harassment intended to impede the arbitration. This campaign manifested primarily through a sequence of five overlapping travel bans imposed on Mr. Muduroglu, a British citizen, beginning in January 2024, which effectively prevented him from leaving Azerbaijan. The grounds for these bans were varied and, according to the Claimants, pretextual. They included an alleged visa violation (which was dismissed), a tax debt for a company named Malham (which was paid under protest and later found by a domestic court to have been improperly calculated), a larger tax debt for the company Neptun, and culminating in a criminal investigation into alleged tax evasion and a separate ban initiated by the state-owned entity Aqrarkredit. Simultaneously, the Claimants sought to suspend domestic proceedings initiated by Aqrarkredit, which they described as an alter ego of the State, to foreclose on and auction the Landmark III property in Baku, a central asset in the dispute. The Claimants argued these measures aggravated the dispute, disrupted the status quo, and created a chilling effect that hindered their ability to prepare their case and Mr. Muduroglu’s ability to testify freely. They also contended that the domestic proceedings violated the exclusivity of ICSID arbitration under Article 26 of the ICSID Convention. Azerbaijan countered that its actions were legitimate and sovereign exercises of its domestic law. It argued the tax audits, travel bans, and criminal investigations were standard procedures conducted by competent authorities in response to tax evasion and other legal violations. It asserted that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to interfere with its domestic criminal processes and that lifting the travel ban would effectively halt the criminal investigation, as Azerbaijani law allegedly did not permit trials in absentia for the charged offenses. The Tribunal's response to the provisional measures requests evolved over time. In initial decisions in July 2024 and March 2025, it denied the Claimants' requests as premature but expressed increasing concern over the pattern of successive travel bans and their potential to materially impinge on the procedural integrity of the arbitration. The turning point came on July 2, 2025, when the Tribunal, in its third decision on the matter (the “PMO”), found that the cumulative effect of the bans, which had by then prevented Mr. Muduroglu from leaving Azerbaijan for nearly a year and a half, satisfied the criteria of urgency and necessity. It issued a binding recommendation ordering Azerbaijan to immediately lift all restrictions on Mr. Muduroglu's departure. Azerbaijan failed to fully comply, refusing to lift the ban related to the criminal investigation. This led the Respondent to request a reconsideration of the PMO and the Claimants to request sanctions. In a decisive ruling on October 30, 2025, the Tribunal denied Azerbaijan's request for reconsideration, confirming that its order was unequivocal and applied to all travel bans without exception. While it denied the Claimants' requests for more severe sanctions like daily monetary penalties, it found that an award of costs was warranted due to the Respondent's non-compliance. Subsequently, on November 26, 2025, the Tribunal issued an Interim Cost Order, awarding the Claimants US$556,234 for legal fees incurred in connection with the successful phase of the provisional measures proceedings.