Belarus Revises Rules on International Civil Procedure

On 1 January 2026, a new Code of Civil Procedure («Кодекс гражданского судопроизводства» in Russian) (the “Code”) came into force in Belarus. The Code represents a unified set of rules for both civil and economic matters, replacing two codes of procedure that had been in effect for nearly three decades.

Section VII of the Code, titled “International Civil Procedure”, presents updated provisions on cross-border dispute resolution in Belarus. In this blog post, we will discuss the rules outlined in Section VII concerning: (1) jurisdiction in cases involving foreign parties; and (2) the recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments and foreign arbitral awards. Additionally, we will examine (3) notable developments affecting domestic arbitration proceedings that fall outside Section VII of the Code.

1. Jurisdiction in Cases involving Foreign Parties

A. General rules

The general rules on jurisdiction over cross-border disputes have not undergone significant changes under the new Code. In accordance with Article 508 of the Code, Belarusian courts may exercise jurisdiction over disputes involving foreign parties where the respondent is domiciled in Belarus or where the dispute has a close connection to Belarus (for example, when the dispute concerns Belarusian-issued securities or a contract performed, in whole or in part, in Belarus).

Article 509 of the Code provides that Belarusian courts have exclusive jurisdiction over disputes involving foreign parties in the following cases:

• disputes concerning state-owned property;
• disputes relating to immovable property located in Belarus;
• disputes concerning the invalidation of entries in state registers or cadastres maintained by Belarusian authorities;
• disputes concerning the release of property from seizure where the seizure was carried out by a Belarusian state body;
• disputes relating to the establishment, registration, or liquidation of legal entities in Belarus, as well as disputes concerning decisions of their governing bodies;
• disputes arising from administrative and other public-law relations; and
• insolvency or bankruptcy proceedings involving legal entities domiciled in Belarus.

Notwithstanding the absence of an express provision in Belarusian arbitration legislation, disputes concerning the above subject matters are, as a matter of established practice, considered non-arbitrable. Accordingly, any arbitration agreement purporting to cover such disputes would be held unenforceable.

B. Disputes involving unilateral restrictive measures (sanctions)

Special rules apply to disputes involving unilateral restrictive measures (sanctions) against Belarus or its nationals.

In July 2023, Belarus enacted its own version of Russia’s Lugovoy Law, formally known as the Law of the Republic of Belarus dated 12 July 2023 No. 280-Z “On the Application of Special Restrictive Measures” (“Law No. 280-Z”). Articles 10 and 11 of Law No. 280-Z largely mirror Articles 248.1 and 248.2 of Russia’s Arbitrazh Procedure Code.

Article 10(1) of Law No. 280-Z establishes the exclusive jurisdiction of Belarusian courts over economic disputes: (1) involving Belarus, its legal entities, individual entrepreneurs, and other citizens (collectively, “Belarusian persons”) who are subject to sanctions; or (2) between Belarusian and/or foreign parties where the dispute arises as a result of sanctions imposed on Belarusian persons, unless otherwise provided by an applicable treaty or by prorogation or arbitration agreement of the parties.

Notably, pursuant to Article 10(3), the Belarusian court may take over a dispute if it decides that sanctions make the prorogation or arbitration agreement between the disputing parties unenforceable.

According to Article 11 of Law No. 280-Z, a Belarusian or foreign party against whom proceedings have been commenced before a foreign court or arbitral tribunal may apply to a Belarusian court for an order restraining such proceedings, provided that the dispute falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of Belarusian courts under Article 10(1).

Despite the comparatively limited jurisprudence under Law No. 280-Z relative to Russia’s Lugovoy Law, applications by Belarusian persons under these provisions have been met with a relatively high degree of success.

In 2023, Belarusian courts granted at least five anti-arbitration injunctions restraining proceedings before the ICAC at the Ukrainian CCI, the Swiss Arbitration Centre, and in a Geneva-seated ICC arbitration. We are also aware of cases in which Belarusian courts restrained proceedings in an LCIA arbitration seated in Dubai and an SCC arbitration seated in Stockholm. To the best of our knowledge, unlike Russian courts, Belarusian courts have not yet questioned the neutrality of “eastern” arbitral institutions such as SIAC and HKIAC.

Although the judgments are not publicly available, it is understood that, when granting anti-arbitration injunctions, Belarusian courts primarily focus on how restrictive measures in the jurisdiction of the arbitral seat or the administering institution affect the ability of a Belarusian party to “access justice.” The inability to make payments in foreign currency, including for legal services, as well as visa restrictions, are among the most frequently cited reasons for granting such injunctions.

2. Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Court Judgments and Foreign Arbitral Awards

A. Foreign court judgments

Multilateral and bilateral treaties. Reciprocity

Belarus is a state party to several multilateral and bilateral treaties that establish reciprocal arrangements for the enforcement of foreign court judgments.

Under the auspices of the Commonwealth of Independent States (the “CIS”), Belarus has entered into multiple multilateral treaties, including the 1992 Kiev Convention, the 1993 Minsk Convention, and the 2002 Chisinau Convention (the “CIS Conventions”). In addition to the CIS Conventions, Belarus has signed bilateral treaties with Bulgaria, China, Cuba, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Iran, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Mongolia, Poland, Russia (including the 2001 Minsk Agreement), Serbia, Slovakia, Syria, Turkey, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe.

In the absence of the applicable treaty or legislative provision, Belarusian courts decide on enforcement applications based on the principle of reciprocity. Reciprocity is treated as a procedural presumption.

Procedure

Article 528(1) of the Code stipulates that a foreign court judgment creditor may seek enforcement in Belarusian courts if either the judgment debtor resides in Belarus or if the debtor’s assets are located there. The limitation period for enforcing a foreign court judgment is three years from the date it takes effect.

Belarusian courts decide on enforcement applications within one month from the date they are filed. Importantly, the only party that the Belarusian court notifies about the proceedings is the judgment debtor.

B. Foreign arbitral awards

Multilateral treaties

Belarus is a state party to the 1958 New York Convention and the 1961 European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration.

Concept of the seat of arbitration

Article 527(4) of the Code categorizes foreign arbitral awards into two distinct types: those that are rendered in a foreign state and those that are issued within the Republic of Belarus by an arbitral tribunal situated in a foreign state. This development indicates that the Code now implicitly recognizes the concept of the seat of arbitration (albeit in a limited way).

Procedure

Enforcement of a foreign arbitral award, similar to a foreign court judgment, can be pursued in Belarusian courts if the award debtor is a Belarusian resident or their assets are found within the country. Notably, there is no limitation period under the new Code for enforcing foreign arbitral awards. Prior to the legislative changes, the limitation period was set at three years from the date an award was issued and became effective.

The Belarusian court decides on the application within one month of filing, and its ruling may be appealed. Notice of the proceedings is given by the court solely to the award debtor.

Compared with its predecessor, the Code now sets out the grounds for refusing recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award in a manner fully consistent with the 1958 New York Convention, as the structure of Article 533 of the Code mirrors Article V of the Convention.

The Belarusian court may, on its own initiative, refuse enforcement on the grounds of non-arbitrability or public policy, even if the award debtor does not raise these objections.

3. Developments Affecting Domestic Arbitration Proceedings

Under Article 473(1) of the Code, a party involved in a domestic arbitration can petition the Belarusian court to overturn a preliminary jurisdictional decision issued by an international arbitral tribunal (or any other permanent arbitration body), as long as this action is sanctioned by a relevant treaty of the Republic of Belarus. The concept of “preliminary jurisdictional decision” is a feature of Belarusian arbitration legislation, mandating domestic arbitral tribunals to rule on jurisdictional challenges separately before advancing to the merits of the case.

The provision of Article 473(1) of the Code aligns with Article V(3) of the 1961 European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration, to which Belarus is a party. Before January 2026, Belarusian courts consistently denied applications based solely on Article V(3) of the 1961 European Convention.

In our view, the refinements discussed in this blog post bring Belarusian procedural rules closer to international standards and enhance the predictability of the legal framework. The other side of the coin is that certain areas, in particular sanctions-related disputes with foreign parties, continue to be viewed as sensitive and remain a carve-out from the otherwise arbitration-friendly environment. While the Code appears to be a precise adjustment rather than a radical transformation, the practical implications of the reform are still to be observed.