Recognition of a Court Judgment in Kazakhstan: How to Actually Recover a Debt

Author: Sergei Anatolyevich Brazaitis, lawyer at the law firm "Economic Disputes," specializing in construction, real estate, foreign courts, foreign companies, foreign trade, taxes, customs, and foreign practice (Lithuania, Poland, Georgia, Serbia, China)

13.06.2026

Belarusian companies increasingly face a situation where a debtor and its assets are located in Kazakhstan while the judgment has already been issued by an economic court of the Republic of Belarus. A Belarusian judgment has no legal effect in Kazakhstan on its own: to obtain payment, a creditor must go through the recognition and enforcement procedure under the rules of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the international treaties of the CIS. This article examines which conventions apply between Belarus and Kazakhstan, how to choose the competent court, which documents to prepare, and — most importantly — what happens after a Kazakh writ of execution is issued, at the stage of actual enforcement proceedings and interaction with court enforcement officers.

Why does recognition of a court judgment in Kazakhstan start with international treaties?

The basic principle: judgments of Belarusian economic courts can be recognized and enforced in Kazakhstan only where an international treaty exists or on the basis of the principle of reciprocity.

Belarus and Kazakhstan are simultaneously bound by several multilateral CIS treaties that form a "legal framework" for the recognition and enforcement of judicial acts:

First, the 1993 Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family, and Criminal Matters (the Minsk Convention). It establishes a general mechanism for recognizing and enforcing judgments across the CIS space, including in economic disputes.

Second, the 2002 Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family, and Criminal Matters (the Kishinev Convention), ratified by both Belarus and Kazakhstan. Section III of this convention is specifically devoted to the recognition and enforcement of judgments, including acts approving settlement agreements and interim measures securing a claim.

Third, the Agreement on the Procedure for Settling Disputes Related to Commercial Activity of 20.03.1992 (the Kyiv Agreement). It is directly oriented toward commercial (economic) disputes between parties from CIS states and establishes the mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments of economic and arbitration courts, including those of Belarus and Kazakhstan.

For a Belarusian creditor, this means that recognition of a Belarusian economic court judgment in Kazakhstan is not built from scratch but rests on a stable system of multilateral CIS agreements. The principle of reciprocity may additionally apply if a particular situation is not covered by the conventions.

What is an exequatur and how does it work between Belarus and Kazakhstan?

An exequatur is a special procedure whereby a court of one state confirms that a foreign court's judgment may be enforced on its territory and issues the corresponding writ of execution. In other words, an exequatur is the consent of the enforcing state's court to apply coercive measures against the debtor on the basis of a foreign judicial act.

In Belarus, the exequatur system is set out in the Economic Procedure Code (EPC). Articles 245–250 of the EPC govern the recognition and enforcement of judgments of foreign courts and foreign arbitral awards: they establish the jurisdiction of economic courts, the list of required documents, deadlines, grounds for refusal, and the specifics of reviewing such applications.

Kazakhstan, in turn, provides for a similar two-stage mechanism: first the court reviews the application for recognition and enforcement of the foreign judgment (the exequatur stage), and then, if the outcome is positive, it issues a writ of execution, which is transferred to a court enforcement officer for actual recovery. Article 503 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (CPC RK) governs territorial jurisdiction, the filing deadline (three years from the end of the period for voluntary enforcement), and the general procedural framework.

Thus, a Belarusian economic court judgment gets a "second life" in Kazakhstan only after successfully passing through the exequatur procedure in a Kazakh court.

Which Kazakh court has jurisdiction to recognize a Belarusian economic court judgment?

An application for recognition and enforcement of a Belarusian economic court judgment is filed with a court of the Republic of Kazakhstan under the territorial jurisdiction rules set out in Article 503 of the CPC RK. Broadly, there are three connecting factors: the debtor's place of residence, the location of the debtor legal entity, or the location of its property if the debtor's whereabouts are unknown.

In disputes involving CIS states, applications are generally reviewed by the general courts of the relevant Kazakh region (oblast, city of republican significance) or by specialized inter-district courts where provided for under the internal court system. When choosing a court, a Belarusian creditor should take into account where the debtor's assets are actually concentrated: enforcement proceedings will be most effective there.

The deadline for applying to the court is three years from the end of the period for voluntary enforcement of the judgment. This moment is usually determined either by the text of the Belarusian economic court judgment (if a deadline for enforcement is set) or by the date the judgment entered into legal force, confirmed by a court certificate. If the deadline is missed for a valid reason, the court may reinstate it upon the creditor's motion.

Which documents are required, and is an apostille needed for Kazakhstan?

The package of documents for cases between CIS states generally follows from the Kyiv Agreement and the Guidelines of the Presidium of the Supreme Economic Court of the Republic of Belarus of 18.10.2006 No. 90, which describe in detail the procedure for enforcing economic court judgments abroad.

As a rule, recognizing and enforcing a Belarusian economic court judgment in Kazakhstan requires: a certified copy of the court judgment, a document confirming the judgment's entry into legal force (if this is not evident from the text itself), evidence of proper notice to the defendant, and the writ of execution (order) of the Belarusian court. These requirements correspond to Articles 245–246 of the EPC of the Republic of Belarus, which similarly impose strict requirements for the document package when recognizing foreign judgments in Belarus.

Kazakh legislation and CIS conventions impose special requirements for the certification of documents. For states party to the Minsk and Kishinev Conventions, the key rule is that official documents issued by the competent authorities of one party are recognized as valid on the territory of the other party without consular legalization or an apostille, provided the form is observed and an official seal is present.

This means Belarusian judicial acts and certificates issued by an economic court and executed in accordance with EPC requirements may be submitted to a Kazakh court without an apostille. In practice, however, a notarized translation into Russian or Kazakh and proper notarial certification of copies will almost always be required to avoid disputes over "proper certification" of the documents.

How do you prove proper notice to the defendant in a Belarusian case?

One typical ground for refusing to recognize a foreign court judgment is the absence of proper notice to the debtor about the proceedings. In Belarusian law this is reflected, in particular, in the list of grounds for refusing recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments set out in Article 248 of the EPC of the Republic of Belarus; the Minsk and Kishinev Conventions and the CPC RK contain a similar approach.

In Kazakh practice, courts carefully verify whether the debtor's procedural rights were respected during the proceedings in the foreign court. It therefore makes sense to attach to the application for recognizing a Belarusian economic court judgment: copies of court summonses, delivery notices for postal items, electronic tracking data, printouts from e-justice systems (if available), and the ruling of the Belarusian court confirming that the case was heard with proper notice to the parties.

The more consistently and clearly it is shown that the defendant had a real opportunity to participate in the proceedings, the lower the chances that the Kazakh court will refuse recognition citing a violation of the right to a defense.

What happens after recognition: how do enforcement proceedings work in Kazakhstan?

Once a Kazakh court has issued a ruling recognizing and enforcing a Belarusian economic court judgment and has issued a writ of execution, the second — and in practice decisive — stage begins: enforcement proceedings.

A writ of execution is the official document issued by a Kazakh court on the basis of which a court enforcement officer (state or private) is entitled to apply coercive enforcement measures against the debtor: levying execution on funds and property, imposing seizure, restricting the disposal of assets, and applying other measures provided for by the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Enforcement Proceedings and the Status of Court Enforcement Officers."

Enforcement proceedings in Kazakhstan are a distinct stage of implementing a judicial act, within which the court enforcement officer opens the proceedings, notifies the parties, sets a deadline for voluntary compliance, and, once it expires, begins applying coercive measures. The arsenal of Kazakh court enforcement officers includes:

levying execution on funds in the debtor's bank accounts; seizing and selling the debtor's movable and immovable property, including through electronic auctions; restricting registration actions with assets (for example, prohibiting the disposal of vehicles or real estate); restricting an individual debtor's travel outside Kazakhstan where there is significant debt.

For a Belarusian creditor, it is important to understand that the quality of interaction with the court enforcement officer determines whether the Belarusian economic court judgment remains "paper" or turns into real money. Practice shows that with precise localization of assets and prompt work with the court enforcement officer, effective recovery is possible even in complex cross-border cases.

Can interim measures and asset freezes be requested before recognition of the judgment?

The question of whether a debtor's property can be seized in Kazakhstan before the recognition procedure for a Belarusian economic court judgment is completed comes up fairly often in practice. The CPC RK provides for securing a claim and adopting interim measures, including seizure of property, a ban on certain actions, and other measures aimed at securing future enforcement of a judicial act.

The courts' approach depends significantly on how the application is worded and on the legal construction the creditor relies on. In some cases, courts take the view that interim measures are only possible within an already-opened case (for example, when reviewing an application for recognition and enforcement of a Belarusian court judgment). In others, a more flexible approach is applied, based on the goal of preventing asset stripping, especially where specific facts show the debtor preparing to conceal property.

The Kishinev Convention additionally mentions the possibility of enforcing judicial acts on securing a claim (including seizing property) between member states, which allows, with proper argumentation, achieving recognition and enforcement in Kazakhstan of interim measures already ordered by a Belarusian court. This typically requires a full package of documents confirming both the interim measure itself and its connection to the underlying dispute.

How does the "public policy" filter work, and what about parallel proceedings?

The standard set of grounds for refusing recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment is nearly identical in Belarus and Kazakhstan: lack of court jurisdiction, violation of the right to a defense, the existence of an effective parallel judgment between the same parties on the same subject and grounds, and conflict with public policy. The Minsk and Kishinev Conventions, the EPC of the Republic of Belarus, and the CPC of the Republic of Kazakhstan set out these grounds in nearly identical wording.

Public policy in this context is understood as the fundamental foundations of the enforcing state's legal order and justice system. In practice, Kazakh courts apply this ground narrowly and specifically, sometimes going beyond a narrowly understood procedural check. In the well-known case of Avanessov v Shymkentpivo, the Supreme Court of Kazakhstan confirmed the possibility of recognizing an English court judgment in the absence of an international treaty, relying on the principle of presumed reciprocity, while at the same time emphasizing that the public policy assessment must be proportionate and must not turn into a review of the dispute on its merits.

For a Belarusian judgment, the key risk relates to the possible existence of parallel acts — for example, if a Russian court or an international arbitral tribunal has reviewed a dispute under the same contract. In such situations, it is important to map out the relevant proceedings in advance and, if necessary, build a strategy that rules out competing judgments.

Practical recommendation for a Belarusian creditor

A practically useful recommendation for a creditor from Belarus is this: preparation of the case for enforcement in Kazakhstan should begin already at the stage of the Belarusian proceedings. Articles 243, 245, and 246 of the EPC of the Republic of Belarus make it possible to anticipate in advance which documents will be needed to recognize the judgment abroad, and the guidelines of the Supreme Economic Court set out in detail the form of certificates confirming entry into legal force and proper notice.

It makes sense to ask the Belarusian economic court to state expressly in the operative part of the judgment the amount recovered both in the currency of the contract and its equivalent, as well as the deadline for voluntary compliance. This will make it easier for the Kazakh court to verify compliance with the three-year filing deadline and will reduce the risk of procedural disputes. At the enforcement stage in Kazakhstan, the right step is to engage a local specialist familiar with the practice of the specific region and the specifics of private court enforcement officers' work.

A little-known fact: how CIS conventions simplify enforcement of Belarusian judgments in Kazakhstan

A little-known but significant detail: the Kishinev Convention applies not only to judgments on the merits but also to judicial acts approving settlement agreements and imposing seizure on property to secure a claim. This means that a Belarusian settlement agreement approved by an economic court, or a ruling imposing seizure on a debtor's property, can be recognized and enforced in Kazakhstan in essentially the same manner as the main judgment.

This opens additional tactical opportunities for a creditor: one can secure approval of a settlement agreement in Belarus providing, for example, for staged debt repayment and agreed security measures, and then transfer that agreement to Kazakhstan to give it the force of a writ of execution. With the right combination of procedural steps, this can turn out to be faster and cheaper than initiating a new, comprehensive dispute directly in a Kazakh court.

How does "Economic Disputes" LLC assist with this procedure

The practice of recognizing and enforcing judgments of Belarusian economic courts abroad — including in Kazakhstan — has long been one of the core practice areas of "Economic Disputes" LLC. The company has built a systematic approach based on a combination of Belarusian procedural experience and stable partnerships with colleagues in Kazakhstan and other CIS countries.

The firm's lawyers have 15–25 years of experience in economic disputes and cross-border cases; many of them regularly speak at conferences and corporate training sessions. Sergei Belyavsky, director of "Economic Disputes" LLC, worked in the system of economic courts of the Republic of Belarus for over 20 years, including 10 years as a judge, and today serves as a recommended arbitrator of the International Arbitration Court at the BelCCI and an arbitrator at other international arbitration institutions, author of five books and more than 1,500 publications on judicial and arbitration practice.

The company has offices in Minsk (11 Kulman Street) and Grodno (23 Kaliuchynskaya Street), works freely in Russian, English, and Polish, and relies on a broad partner network spanning more than 160 countries around the world — from Spain to China and Mongolia, from the United States to South Africa. For international projects, having its own bank account with PKO Bank Polski is significant, simplifying settlements with foreign clients and partners. The company's client base exceeds 2,000 organizations and entrepreneurs, for whom more than 1.9 billion Belarusian rubles have already been returned or saved, and the website features more than a hundred positive reviews.

If you need to assess the prospects for recognizing and enforcing a Belarusian economic court judgment in Kazakhstan, build a strategy for working with a debtor's assets, or compare enforcement options across different jurisdictions, leave a request for a consultation on our website.