Enforcing Foreign Arbitral Awards in Belarus Under the New York Convention

You have a foreign arbitral award. ICC. LCIA. SCC. ICAC. A BelCCI award seated outside Belarus. The institution doesn’t matter for this — the award is final and ready to go. The Belarusian debtor has assets in Minsk: bank accounts, real estate, accounts receivable, equipment in a warehouse somewhere. You want to bring the award here and get paid.

The question that comes next matters more than most foreign counsel realise. Who issued the award. Who’s the creditor on its face — a legal entity or a natural person. Which country that creditor is registered in. Belarus is still a New York Convention signatory, and the recognition machinery still runs. But Presidential Decree No. 137 of April 2022 changed what happens after recognition. And it changed it in ways that depend entirely on who you are.

Below: the framework that still functions, the Decree 137 restrictions that catch most foreign legal entities by surprise, the Russian Federation carve-out that operates differently, the actual procedure, realistic costs and timelines, and the strategic options when compulsory enforcement is suspended. Honest version. Not the marketing version.

The legal framework that still works

Belarus is a signatory to the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. Has been since 1960. The Convention now binds more than 170 contracting states. Domestically, recognition runs through the Code of Civil Procedure — recently consolidated; the relevant provisions used to sit in the Economic Procedural Code — with Article 246 setting the application procedure. The Law on International Arbitration Court of 9 July 1999, Article 45, confirms that foreign awards are recognised in line with Belarusian procedural law and the country’s international treaties.

The framework is UNCITRAL Model Law-based. Sophisticated. Predictable. Belarusian economic courts apply Article V of the New York Convention in line with international practice — refusals are unusual and almost always traceable to procedural defects in the foreign arbitration rather than substantive review of the merits. The court doesn’t re-litigate the dispute. It checks whether the award qualifies under the Convention’s narrow refusal grounds. That’s the whole point of New York Convention recognition. The Convention does the lifting.

This part is intact. What changed in April 2022 was what happens after recognition. For certain creditor categories that step now looks very different from how it looked three years ago. Most articles on this topic skip past that fact. We’re not going to.

Presidential Decree No. 137 — the 2022 fact most articles skip

April 2022. Presidential Decree No. 137 suspended the compulsory enforcement of court judgments and arbitral awards in favour of legal entities registered in countries that Belarus designates as “unfriendly.” The list is approved by the Government. Currently it runs to thirteen-plus positions: all EU member states, the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Norway, Switzerland, Iceland, Liechtenstein, New Zealand, Albania, North Macedonia, and Montenegro.

Four operational facts to hold in your head while reading the rest of this:

• Legal entity vs natural person. The suspension hits legal entities — corporations, LLCs, GmbHs, SARLs, Inc’s. Natural persons (individuals) from the same countries aren’t affected. A French SAS creditor: suspended. A French citizen as creditor in personal capacity: standard enforcement.
• Recognition still runs. The decree suspends compulsory enforcement through bailiffs. It doesn’t suspend the recognition procedure itself. Belarusian courts continue to hear and grant recognition applications under the Convention. You get a recognised award. What you can’t currently do is have the bailiff service compulsorily collect.
• Voluntary payment isn’t prohibited. The Belarusian debtor can still pay voluntarily. The decree restricts state-led compulsory enforcement — not private payment of an obligation. Many debtors prefer to settle a recognised award than carry it indefinitely on their books.
• Place in the queue is preserved. New enforcement applications can be filed during the suspension; they’re immediately suspended themselves, but the creditor keeps queue position for when restrictions lift. The filing isn’t wasted. It’s a placeholder.

Plain language version for affected creditors. Your German GmbH’s ICC award against a Belarusian LLC will be recognised. It won’t currently be compulsorily enforced through bailiffs. A German individual creditor’s identical award will be both recognised and enforced normally. Same legal substance. Different practical outcome.

The decree itself, the resolutions approving the unfriendly-states list, and updates to either are published on the Belarusian national legal portal. We covered the wider picture — including how this interacts with court proceedings — in our guide to recovering debts from Belarusian companies, which is the right companion piece if you’re weighing whether to start arbitration in the first place.

The Russian Federation carve-out

Russian awards work differently. Worth its own section because the procedure is structurally simpler — and because a meaningful share of foreign creditors operate through Russian arbitration institutions.

Under the bilateral agreement between Belarus and Russia on mutual enforcement of judicial acts (Moscow, 17 January 2001), Russian Federation court judgments and arbitral awards don’t need the standard recognition procedure in Belarus. They’re enforced on the same basis as Belarusian executive documents. The creditor applies directly to the debtor’s bank — or, if account information isn’t available or there isn’t enough on the account, directly to Belarusian enforcement authorities. No separate recognition application. No Article V review by a Belarusian court.

Russian arbitration awards from ICAC at the Chamber of Commerce of the Russian Federation, MAC, and other recognised Russian arbitral institutions all follow this regime. The Decree 137 framework also doesn’t apply — Russia isn’t on the unfriendly-states list. For Russian award holders the route into Belarus is genuinely streamlined. For most other foreign creditors, it isn’t.

How the recognition procedure actually works

For creditors not affected by Decree 137 — Russian creditors on the bilateral track, natural persons from any country, or any creditor once restrictions are lifted — and for affected creditors who want recognition itself even if compulsory enforcement currently can’t follow. Same procedure either way.

Step 1. File with the right economic court

The application goes to the Belarusian economic court at the debtor’s location. If the debtor’s location is unknown, application goes to where the debtor’s assets are. Filing can now be electronic with a qualified digital signature — fairly new since the procedural code was consolidated, and a useful upgrade for foreign counsel working remotely.

Step 2. The documents

What needs to be in the package:

• Original or duly certified copy of the arbitral award.
• Original or duly certified copy of the arbitration agreement that produced the award.
• Apostille or consular legalisation, depending on the country of issue.
• Certified translation into Russian or Belarusian — by a Belarusian licensed translator, with the translator’s signature notarised in Belarus. Foreign translations don’t count. We’ve covered this in detail in our companion pieces; it catches foreign creditors regularly.
• Document confirming payment of the state duty.
• Power of attorney for the Belarusian representative, properly executed and legalised.

Step 3. The hearing

Court considers the application within one month of receipt. Both parties are notified. Non-appearance doesn’t prevent consideration. The court reviews whether any of the Article V grounds for refusal apply. It does not review the merits of the underlying dispute. That’s the entire point of recognition under the Convention — a checking procedure, not a re-do.

Step 4. The ruling

Recognition granted: court issues a ruling and an enforcement document. Recognition refused: appeal route through the higher economic court. Refusals on Article V grounds aren’t common for properly conducted foreign arbitrations. Refusals on public policy grounds — the catch-all that worries some foreign counsel — are rare in practice. Belarusian courts have read public policy narrowly, in line with international Convention practice. The fear is bigger than the actual hit rate.

Step 5. Enforcement, subject to Decree 137 where applicable

For unaffected creditors, the enforcement document goes to the Department for Compulsory Enforcement. Bailiffs start the standard process — bank account attachment, identification and seizure of real estate, accounts receivable, equipment, vehicles. There’s a 10% mandatory enforcement fee on amounts actually collected, on top of the state duty. The fee comes out of collected funds, not paid separately.

Article V — the grounds for refusal that Belarusian courts apply

Five grounds the court will look at on application of the resisting party, plus two grounds the court applies on its own motion. Same framework as every other New York Convention jurisdiction. Worth knowing what they are, because most refusals (when they happen) come from one of them.

On application of the party against whom the award is invoked:

• Invalidity of the arbitration agreement. Parties’ incapacity. Agreement not valid under the law to which the parties subjected it, or under the law of the country where the award was made.
• Lack of proper notice. The party against whom the award is invoked wasn’t properly notified of the appointment of the arbitrator or of the proceedings, or was otherwise unable to present their case.
• Award outside the scope of the arbitration. The award deals with a difference not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of submission to arbitration, or contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission.
• Improper composition or procedure. The composition of the arbitral authority or the arbitral procedure wasn’t in accordance with the agreement of the parties or, failing such agreement, with the law of the country where the arbitration took place.
• Award not yet binding, suspended, or set aside. The award hasn’t yet become binding on the parties, or has been set aside or suspended by a competent authority of the country in which, or under the law of which, the award was made.

On the court’s own motion:

• The subject matter isn’t capable of settlement by arbitration under Belarusian law.
• Recognition or enforcement would be contrary to Belarusian public policy.

Two practical observations. First, public policy refusals are genuinely rare. Belarusian courts apply the standard narrowly — the foreign award has to offend fundamental principles of Belarusian law, not merely produce an outcome that Belarusian law would have decided differently. Second, the “improper notice” ground is by some distance the most common basis for a successful resistance. Foreign creditors who didn’t maintain rigorous procedural documentation during the arbitration sometimes find that documentation gap surfaces at the recognition stage. The arbitration counsel’s file matters as much as the award itself.

Realistic timelines and costs

Time limits for filing

• Standard rule: three years from the date the award becomes binding.
• New York Convention awards specifically: Belarusian practice has been flexible — enforcement is possible after the three-year period for awards under the Convention, on the basis of the treaty framework.
• Missed time limits can be restored by the court on application for good cause.

State duty

Fixed amount per application — currently 5 to 10 base values depending on procedural specifics. With the 2026 base value at BYN 45, that’s BYN 225–450. Modest in absolute terms; trivial against the typical claim values that justify this kind of enforcement work.

Realistic timeline — for creditors not affected by Decree 137

• Filing to recognition ruling: 1–2 months.
• Recognition ruling to enforcement document: 1–2 weeks.
• Active bailiff enforcement to first recovery: 3–12 months depending on debtor cooperation and the asset profile.
• Total realistic timeline for an uncomplicated case: 4–14 months end to end.

Realistic timeline — affected legal entities under Decree 137

• Filing to recognition ruling: one to two months.
• Recognition: in hand.
• Compulsory enforcement: suspended. No specific timeline. Until the decree changes or the creditor’s status changes.
• Voluntary payment by the debtor: depends entirely on debtor behaviour. Weeks for some. Never for others.

Legal fees

• Belarusian counsel for a clean recognition application: BYN 5,000–15,000 depending on document complexity and translation volume.
• Active enforcement representation including bailiff liaison and asset realisation work: BYN 5,000–25,000 or more, depending on debtor resistance and case complexity.

Strategic options when compulsory enforcement is suspended

Real options for creditors caught by Decree 137. Not platitudes — actual moves we work through with foreign-entity clients in 2026.

Option 1. File for recognition anyway

Recognition itself isn’t suspended. Filing now gets the award recognised as a Belarusian instrument, locks in your procedural position, and puts you in the queue for when restrictions lift. The cost is modest. The downside of waiting is that procedural and limitation timelines keep running on you. Most of the affected clients we work with file for recognition immediately, then weigh the next move with the recognised award in hand rather than hypothetically.

Option 2. Voluntary settlement against the recognised award

Decree 137 doesn’t prohibit a Belarusian debtor from paying voluntarily. Negotiating against a recognised award is a structurally different conversation than negotiating against an unrecognised one — the debtor knows the award is final, recognised, and waiting for restrictions to lift. Most reasonable Belarusian commercial debtors prefer to settle on a percentage discount than carry the recognised award indefinitely. We see settlements typically in the 60–85% range of the awarded amount, payable in tranches over 6–24 months.

Option 3. Restructure the claim holder

The decree applies to legal entities from designated countries. Natural persons aren’t affected. In some cases — only some — the underlying beneficial owner can be assigned the claim and pursue it individually. Careful structuring exercise. Not a paper shuffle. Tax implications, evidentiary continuity, the original arbitration agreement’s assignment provisions all need attention. Where the structure is available, though, it can unlock enforcement that the corporate claim holder can’t pursue.

Option 4. Enforce in a third jurisdiction

The New York Convention is a 170+ country instrument. If the Belarusian debtor has assets, subsidiaries, accounts, or business relationships in countries where the Convention applies normally, the same award is enforceable there. Belarus may not need to be the only destination. The UNCITRAL status page at uncitral.un.org maps Convention coverage by country. Asset due diligence on the debtor’s broader corporate structure often turns up surprising enforcement targets. Worth doing before assuming Belarus is the answer.

Option 5. Wait — strategically

The decree is a suspension, not an abolition. The political and economic context that produced it could change. Foreign-creditor cases retain their recognition and their queue position. For patient capital and long-term receivables, simply waiting is a valid strategy. Combined with Option 1 (file now), Option 5 means you’re positioned to move fast when restrictions lift. Doing nothing isn’t the same as waiting strategically. Do something now — even if it’s only recognition.

Plan for enforcement before you start the arbitration

The most under-discussed angle in the New York Convention enforcement literature. By the time you have an award, your forum and seat decisions are already made and most of your enforcement options are constrained by choices you made months or years earlier. The planning happens at the front end. Not at enforcement.

• Run asset due diligence on the prospective debtor before choosing forum. Where are the real assets? Bank accounts in which countries? Subsidiaries in which jurisdictions? Property registered where?
• Match the forum to the asset geography. Belarus is a Convention country, so a foreign-seated award reaches Belarus through recognition — but if Belarus is the only enforcement target, an IAC at BelCCI award skips recognition entirely and goes straight to enforcement.
• Draft costs clauses that allow legal fee recovery. Belarusian economic court rules limit cost recovery to small fixed amounts. IAC at BelCCI proceedings with a proper costs clause produce meaningfully better recovery.
• For Russian-Belarusian asset mixes, the BelCCI seat plus the 2001 bilateral agreement opens structurally faster routes than most foreign seats.
• If your counterparty is in a country whose entity-creditors face Decree 137 restrictions, think now about whether the contract should place the contracting party in a different jurisdiction. Or whether a natural-person guarantor structure changes the enforcement profile materially.

Our take on arbitration generally — including the IAC at BelCCI mechanics — is in our arbitration in Belarus article. Worth reading alongside this piece if you’re still at the contracting or pre-dispute stage.

Two scenarios from practice

Scenario A. Cypriot natural-person creditor, standard enforcement

Cypriot individual — not a Cypriot company; the distinction is the whole point — holding an ICC award against a Belarusian LLC for €450,000. Underlying dispute over an equipment supply contract; the individual had stepped into the original commercial position through a structuring transaction completed before arbitration started. Recognition application filed. Recognition granted in six weeks. Decree 137 didn’t apply — natural person, not legal entity from an unfriendly state. Enforcement through the bailiff service kicked off immediately. Bank account attached within three weeks of the enforcement document being issued. Asset realisation underway against vehicles and equipment. Total time from instruction to first recovery: five months.

Scenario B. German GmbH creditor, hybrid strategy

German GmbH holding an SCC award against a Belarusian LLC for €1.2 million. We filed for recognition anyway — the cost was modest, the case stayed on the queue, and the recognised award became live leverage in parallel commercial negotiations. The Belarusian debtor was approached for voluntary settlement against the backdrop of the recognised award. Two rounds of structured negotiation. Settlement reached at 72% of the awarded amount, payable in five quarterly tranches over eighteen months. Secured by an enforceable settlement under Belarusian law plus a Singapore Convention-compliant document for international portability if anything went wrong later. Materially faster and more certain than waiting indefinitely for compulsory enforcement to resume. First three tranches arrived on schedule. Remainder is in voluntary execution.

Different profiles. Different outcomes. Same underlying lesson. The Decree 137 framework doesn’t close Belarus to foreign creditors. It changes how the enforcement strategy has to be designed. Cases that get the strategy right still recover.

Frequently asked questions

Does Decree 137 mean foreign creditors should give up on Belarus?

No. Recognition still works. Voluntary payment still works. Natural persons aren’t affected. Russian creditors have a separate streamlined route. The strategy has to be designed around the restrictions, not against them — but “Belarus is closed” is the kind of overstatement that costs creditors recoveries they could still make.

Can we enforce against a Belarusian individual instead of the company?

Only if the individual is on the face of the award as a debtor. You can’t add parties post-award. Enforcement sometimes reaches natural-person guarantors where they exist on the underlying obligation. The arbitration agreement and award have to support the enforcement target — one of the things to think about at the contracting stage.

How long does Decree 137 last?

Indefinite. It’s a suspension, not a permanent abolition. It could be lifted at any time by presidential action. It could continue indefinitely. Treating it as the operating reality for current planning is appropriate. Treating it as permanent is also wrong. The decree’s text and current scope are tracked on the national legal portal.

Can we still file for recognition with Decree 137 in effect?

Yes. The recognition procedure itself isn’t suspended. Belarusian economic courts continue to hear and decide recognition applications normally. What’s suspended is compulsory enforcement against legal entities from designated states after recognition is granted. Filing for recognition now is often the right move even if compulsory enforcement will have to wait.

What about awards against Belarusian state-owned enterprises?

Sovereign immunity is a separate analysis from Decree 137 and it’s analytically tricky. State-owned enterprises participating in commercial transactions are generally treated as commercial actors — but there are exceptions, and the answer is case-specific. Get specialist advice before assuming standard enforcement applies. Don’t guess this one.

Is an IAC at BelCCI award a foreign or domestic award for these purposes?

Domestic. IAC at BelCCI awards in favour of foreign parties don’t need the foreign-award recognition procedure described here. They go directly to enforcement through a different and faster application. If the IAC at BelCCI is the seat of arbitration, the enforcement architecture is fundamentally different — and faster — than for foreign-seated awards. Often a reason to prefer that seat at the contracting stage when Belarus is the likely enforcement target.

The honest picture — and the practical next step

The Belarus enforcement picture in 2026 is more textured than the standard New York Convention article suggests. Recognition still works. Compulsory enforcement is suspended for legal entities from designated states. Russian creditors are on a separate track. Natural persons are unaffected. Voluntary settlement against recognised awards is the dominant practical route for affected creditors. And strategic planning at the front end of the dispute — forum, seat, contracting structure, asset due diligence — determines how much of this picture you’re dealing with by the time you reach enforcement.

What we tell foreign creditors with foreign arbitral awards: don’t walk away from Belarus before you’ve looked at the actual options for your specific case. Some recoveries that look impossible on a high-level read of the rules are entirely available with the right structuring. Some that look straightforward are blocked. The cases sort by category, and the categories aren’t always obvious until someone reads the award and the facts together.

If you’re holding a foreign arbitral award and considering enforcement in Belarus, get in touch. Short scoping call, document review, route recommended. Most foreign-creditor enforcement cases benefit substantially from that conversation happening before the first formal filing.