Recognition and Enforcement of Dutch Court Decisions in Belarus: Procedure and Practice

Recognition and enforcement of a foreign court decision (exequatur) is a judicial procedure through which a state court confirms the legal force of a judgment rendered by a court of another state and authorizes its compulsory execution on its territory. For a business that has obtained a favorable judgment from a Dutch court (rechtbank or gerechtshof) against a counterparty with assets in Belarus, the question of recognition and enforcement of that decision in Belarus becomes critically important. The legal framework governing this procedure is contained in Section VII of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Belarus (CPC) , specifically in Chapter 51 (Articles 527–535 CPC) , which implements the international obligations of Belarus under bilateral and multilateral treaties. A key factor determining the prospects for recognition is the absence of a bilateral legal assistance treaty between Belarus and the Netherlands, as well as the principle of reciprocity, which plays a decisive role in this situation.

What is the legal basis for recognizing Dutch court decisions in Belarus?

The procedure for recognition and enforcement of foreign court decisions in Belarus is governed by Chapter 51 of the CPC (Articles 527–535) . According to Article 527(1) CPC, decisions of foreign courts are recognized and enforced in Belarus if this is provided for by an international treaty of the Republic of Belarus or on the basis of reciprocity.

There is no bilateral treaty on legal assistance between the Republic of Belarus and the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Consequently, the only possible legal basis for recognition of Dutch court decisions in commercial disputes is the principle of reciprocity.

How does the principle of reciprocity affect recognition proceedings?

The principle of reciprocity means that Belarusian courts will recognize and enforce decisions of courts of a foreign state if that state grants similar recognition to decisions of Belarusian courts. This principle is directly enshrined in Article 527(1) CPC.

In practice, this means that the Belarusian court will examine how the Netherlands treats decisions of Belarusian courts. Under Article 431(1) of the Dutch Civil Procedure Code (Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering) , decisions of foreign courts are not enforceable in the Netherlands unless otherwise provided by treaty or law. For countries without a treaty (including Belarus), Article 985 Rv provides that such cases may be reheard by a Dutch court on the merits. The Netherlands does not recognize Belarusian commercial court decisions under a simplified exequatur procedure.

Applying the reciprocity principle, Belarusian courts will treat Dutch decisions in the same manner — they will not grant simplified recognition and will require a new hearing on the merits of the dispute. This approach is consistent with Article 527(1) CPC and the general principle of reciprocity in international civil procedure.

Which Belarusian court is competent to consider the application?

Pursuant to Article 528(1) CPC, a petition for recognition and enforcement of a foreign court decision is submitted to the economic court of the region (oblast) or the city of Minsk at the location of the debtor or, if the debtor’s location is unknown, at the location of the debtor’s property. The application is submitted in writing and must comply with the requirements of Article 530 CPC.

According to Article 45 CPC, economic courts have jurisdiction over disputes arising from civil, financial, land, and other relations involving legal entities and individual entrepreneurs. Consequently, an application to recognize a Dutch court decision in a business dispute must be filed with an economic court, not a court of general jurisdiction.

What documents must be submitted and what are the requirements?

Article 530(2) CPC establishes the mandatory list of documents to be attached to the petition:

• a duly certified copy of the foreign court decision for which recognition and enforcement is sought;
• a document certifying that the decision has entered into legal force, or, if this is not indicated in the decision itself, a separate document confirming this fact;
• a document confirming that the party against whom the decision was issued was timely and properly notified of the proceedings, and that in the case of a default judgment, the defendant received a copy of the statement of claim;
• a certified translation of the decision and the above documents into Belarusian or Russian (the official languages of legal proceedings in Belarus).

All documents originating from a foreign state must be legalized or have an apostille affixed in accordance with the Hague Convention of 5 October 1961 Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents, to which both Belarus and the Netherlands are parties. Since the decision of a Dutch court is a public document, an apostille must be obtained from the competent Dutch authority (the District Court in the relevant jurisdiction) and affixed to the court decision.

What are the grounds for refusing recognition and enforcement?

Article 532 CPC provides an exhaustive list of grounds on which a Belarusian court may refuse recognition and enforcement of a foreign court decision. These include:

• the decision has not entered into legal force;
• the party against whom the decision was issued was not properly and timely notified of the proceedings and was thereby deprived of the opportunity to present its objections;
• the case falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of Belarusian courts;
• there is a final decision of a Belarusian court in a dispute between the same parties, on the same subject matter, and on the same grounds, that has entered into legal force;
• there is a decision of a court of another foreign state between the same parties, on the same subject matter, and on the same grounds that has been recognized in Belarus;
• the recognition and enforcement of the decision would contradict the public order of the Republic of Belarus.

Additionally, Article 532(2) CPC provides that recognition may be refused if the statute of limitations for presenting the decision for enforcement has expired.

Given the absence of a bilateral treaty and the application of the reciprocity principle, Belarusian courts will also examine whether the Dutch court had international jurisdiction under Article 508 CPC. If the Dutch court’s jurisdiction was based on a prorogation agreement (choice of court clause) or on the place of performance of the contract, this will likely be accepted. However, if jurisdiction was based solely on the plaintiff’s location without the defendant’s consent, this may be challenged. 

What are the timelines and costs of the procedure?

Article 531(1) CPC provides that the application for recognition and enforcement is considered in a court session within one month from the date of receipt of the application by the court. The parties are notified of the time and place of the session; however, the absence of a duly notified party does not prevent consideration of the application.

The court issues a ruling based on the results of the consideration. Article 534 CPC provides that the court, upon granting the application, issues a ruling on recognition and enforcement, on the basis of which an enforcement order (исполнительный лист) is issued by the court and transferred to the debtor for execution.

The costs of the procedure consist of:

• State fee– 10 basic units (approximately 130 euros);
• Translation costs– the cost of a certified translation of the decision and documents into Belarusian or Russian;
• Legal representation costs– if the applicant engages a representative in Belarus.

Since the procedure is a judicial proceeding, the involvement of a qualified lawyer is strongly recommended, especially given the complexity of reciprocity analysis and the need to properly prepare documents.

Legal assistance

Navigating the complexities of cross-border judgment enforcement demands not only theoretical legal knowledge but also a deep understanding of how courts in different jurisdictions actually operate. Our firm, 'Economic Disputes', was founded in 2019 with a clear B2B focus, and over 2,000 businesses have since entrusted us with their international disputes. The total sum we have helped recover or preserve for clients currently stands at over 555,7 millions of euros.

A significant advantage in cross-border work comes from having partners on the ground. We maintain a trusted partner network across more than 160 countries, including the Netherlands, which ensures that local procedural requirements are met precisely. This global reach is complemented by our in-house resources: we have four certified mediators and operate our own arbitration court, 'Economic Disputes', offering alternative dispute resolution mechanisms alongside traditional litigation.

The firm’s director, Sergey Belyavsky, brings a unique perspective to cross-border strategy, having spent 20 years in economic courts, with 10 of those years as a judge. He is also a recommended arbitrator at the IAC under the BelCCI and serves as an arbitrator in other international tribunals. Our team of 15 lawyers and specialists provides services in Russian, Polish, and English, and the firm maintains an account with PKO Bank Polski, facilitating seamless financial operations for European matters.

If your business requires legal support for the recognition and enforcement of foreign court decisions in Belarus or other cross-border matters, submit a request — we will offer a realistic action plan based on your specific situation.