As a general rule, decisions of foreign courts in commercial disputes are recognized in Belarus and are subject to enforcement if this is provided for by law or an international treaty. The Republic of Belarus is a party to a number of international agreements and conventions that establish mutually binding conditions for the recognition of decisions of foreign courts on the territory of different countries.<\/p>\n
For example, in 1992, the Republic of Belarus and Lithuania signed an Agreement on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Cases, which presupposes mutualconfession <\/span>And <\/span>execution <\/span>solutions <\/span>By <\/span>civilian\u00a0<\/span><\/span>(including economic) and family matters, as well as\u00a0<\/span>criminal cases regarding compensation for damage. In addition, similar agreements have been concluded with Bulgaria, Hungary, Vietnam, Iran, Italy, China, Cuba, Latvia, Pakistan, Poland, Serbia, Syria, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic. The provisions of such international agreements are the basis for the enforcement of foreign court decisions in Belarus.<\/span><\/p>\n In addition to bilateral ones, the Republic of Belarus is a party to a number of multilateral conventions, for example, the Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters (concluded in Chisinau in 2002).<\/p>\n A decision on a commercial dispute is subject to enforcement after the economic court issues a ruling O\u00a0<\/span>recognition <\/span>And <\/span>bringing him\u00a0<\/span>in execution. A lawyer in a case of enforcement of a foreign court decision will help prepare an application to the court, create a package of documents determined by procedural legislation, and ensure representation of the applicant\u2019s interests in court.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n As a general rule, the courts of the Republic of Belarus do not evaluate the legality and validity of court decisions adopted abroad. However, procedural legislation defines a number of grounds on which a Belarusian court may refuse to enforce a decision.<\/p>\n As a rule, the original court decision has a corresponding mark from the court office, informing all interested parties about the date the decision entered into force. For example, in Belarus, an interested party will not be able to legalize a decision made by a Belarusian court, i.e. affix an apostille, certify the translation of the decision by a notary, etc., if the decision itself has not entered into legal force.<\/p>\n However, in our practice, there have been cases when the text of the decision itself does not clear the date of its entry into legal force. For example, in a court decision adopted by one of the courts of the Netherlands, there was no corresponding mark on the date of its entry into legal force, and as such there was no procedure for putting such a mark. Such procedural nuances force Belarusian law enforcement officials to seek additional means and ways to confirm the fact that the decision has entered into legal force, which the Belarusian court would consider convincing.<\/p>\n The ability to ensure one\u2019s defense in a trial is one of the main guarantees that ensures the principle of adversarial rights of the parties in a trial. For this reason, the lack of proper notification is one of the grounds for refusing to enforce a foreign court decision.<\/p>\n When assessing these circumstances, the court of Belarus checks not only the fact of the notification, but also its timeliness in order to make sure that the party against whom the decision was made had time to provide counter-arguments, formulate a position on the case and appear in court. This approach is a global practice, which is enshrined in a number of international treaties, in particular in\u00a0Convention<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span>O <\/span>delivery <\/span>behind <\/span>border <\/span>judicial <\/span>And <\/span>extrajudicial <\/span>documents <\/span>By <\/span>civilian <\/span>And <\/span>trading <\/span>affairs, <\/span>prisoner <\/span>V <\/span>G. <\/span>The Hague <\/span>15 <\/span>November <\/span>1965 <\/span>of the year, <\/span>And <\/span>Convention<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span>By <\/span>issues <\/span>civil <\/span>process, <\/span>prisoner <\/span>V <\/span>G. <\/span>The Hague <\/span>1 <\/span>Martha <\/span>1954 <\/span>of the year.<\/span><\/p>\n In the judicial practice of Belarus, refusal to recognize a decision of a foreign court on this basis is a special case. However, similar provisions are provided for in a number of international treaties to which the Republic of Belarus is a party: Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters (Minsk, 1993).<\/p>\n These rules are aimed at preventing the so-called \u201cforum shopping\u201d - an attempt by an interested party to choose the most favorable jurisdiction for the consideration of a dispute. In particular, various legal regimes in specific cases, due to the specifics of the legislation, provide for substantive or procedural law that is \u201cmore beneficial\u201d for the party to the conflict. For example, in the Republic of Belarus, economic courts do not actively use business customs as a justification for certain decisions made, as in countries of the Anglo-Saxon legal system.<\/p>\n As a general rule, a foreign court decision can be enforced within three years from the date the court decision entered into legal force. If the specified period is missed, it can be restored at the request of the interested party in the manner determined by the procedural legislation of the Republic of Belarus.<\/p>\n Our practice shows that it is extremely important to take into account the running of the statute of limitations, since in commercial disputes it is often difficult to justify that the deadline for recognizing a decision of a foreign court has been missed for a good reason.<\/p>\n By public order of the Republic of Belarus it is necessary to understandrebirthing <\/span>principles <\/span>international <\/span>rights, <\/span>norms <\/span>Constitution<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span>Republic <\/span>Belarus, <\/span>provisions <\/span>international <\/span>contracts <\/span>Republic <\/span>Belarus, <\/span>basic <\/span>principles <\/span>fundamental <\/span>industries <\/span>rights.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span>Under <\/span>basics <\/span>law and order <\/span>Not <\/span>can <\/span>be understood <\/span>moral, <\/span>religious, <\/span>cultural, <\/span>economic <\/span>principles <\/span>construction <\/span>public <\/span>life.\u00a0<\/span><\/span>Example <\/span>generally recognized <\/span>principle <\/span>international <\/span>rights, <\/span>subject <\/span>application, <\/span>V <\/span>volume <\/span>number <\/span>at <\/span>consideration <\/span>economic <\/span>(economic) <\/span>disputes, <\/span>is <\/span>principle <\/span>pacta <\/span>sunt <\/span>servanda <\/span>—\u00a0<\/span>every <\/span>active <\/span>agreement <\/span>required <\/span>For <\/span>his <\/span>participants <\/span>And <\/span>must <\/span>them <\/span>in good faith <\/span>be carried out.<\/span><\/p>\n Please note that when considering an application for recognition and enforcement of a foreign court decision, being checked <\/span>Not <\/span>herself <\/span>essence <\/span>foreign <\/span>judicial <\/span>solutions, <\/span>A <\/span>exactly <\/span>consequences <\/span>confessions <\/span>And <\/span>casts <\/span>V <\/span>execution <\/span>foreign <\/span>judicial <\/span>solutions.<\/span><\/p>\n Recognition of decisions of arbitration bodies is generally similar to the procedure for recognition and enforcement of decisions of foreign courts. In particular, procedural legislation provides for a similar procedure for filing applications in court, as well as grounds for refusing to issue an appropriate determination. The Republic of Belarus is a participant\u00a0Convention<\/span><\/span>\u00a0UN\u00a0<\/span>O <\/span>recognition <\/span>And <\/span>bringing <\/span>V <\/span>execution <\/span>foreign <\/span>arbitration <\/span>decisions, <\/span>prisoner\u00a0<\/span>V <\/span>G. <\/span>New York <\/span>10 <\/span>June <\/span>1958 <\/span>year, which creates legal prerequisites for access to Belarusian justice.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n For more detailed information, please do not hesitate to contact us in any way convenient for you.<\/p>","protected":false},"featured_media":406,"parent":0,"template":"","acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nEnforcement of a foreign court decision in Belarus<\/h2>\n
Refusal to enforce a foreign court decision in Belarus<\/h2>\n
The decision of the foreign court has not entered into legal force<\/h3>\n
The party to the dispute was not properly notified of the proceedings<\/h3>\n
A dispute considered by a foreign court falls within the exclusive competence of the court of Belarus<\/h3>\n
On <\/span>consideration <\/span>ships <\/span>V <\/span>Republic <\/span>Belarus <\/span>located <\/span>case <\/span>By <\/span>dispute <\/span>between <\/span>those <\/span>same <\/span>persons <\/span>O <\/span>volume <\/span>same <\/span>subject <\/span>And <\/span>By <\/span>those <\/span>same <\/span>reasons <\/span>production <\/span>By <\/span>to whom <\/span>excited <\/span>before <\/span>excitement <\/span>production <\/span>By <\/span>business <\/span>V <\/span>foreign <\/span>court<\/span><\/h3>\n
The statute of limitations for enforcement of a foreign court decision has expired<\/h3>\n
Enforcement of a foreign court decision is contrary to public policy of the Republic of Belarus<\/h3>\n
Recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards<\/h2>\n