The court decisions available on this website interpret and apply the New York Convention. These court decisions are published in the Yearbook Commercial Arbitration since its Volume I (1976).
For instructions on how to search for court decisions per topic and per country in this website, please refer to our helpful access guide here.
The Supreme Court denied the appeal against a decision granting enforcement of a Latvian award. The lower court, it found, did not incorrectly extend the three-year time limit provided under Belarusian law for seeking enforcement of a foreign award.
Supreme Court of the Republic of Belarus, 12 April 2021, Case № 156ЭИх/211
(R JSC v. G.G. and T, G.V. LLC)
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses the applicable period of limitation for seeking enforcement of an award.
The Supreme Court denied enforcement of a Kazakh award on public policy grounds. In this case, it held that the arbitrator had erroneously applied Kazakh law to the dispute. Since the parties’ agreement did not specify the applicable substantive law, Belarusian law ought to have been applied, in accordance with the civil codes of both Kazakhstan and Belarus.
Supreme Court of the Republic of Belarus, 15 December 2020, Case No. 5-
18их/2020/1201K
(Sh. V. N. v. K LLC)
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
A dispute arising under a tripartite construction contract between customer, contractor and subcontractor had been decided in an arbitration between the customer and the subcontractor. Finding that the contractor had a substantive interest in the arbitration, but had not been present, the Court held that enforcement of the award would violate the Belarusian law principles of equality and protection of rights and interests.
Supreme Court of the Republic of Belarus, 3 June 2020, Case No. 13-1их/2015/507К
(K JSC v. B OJSC)
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
The Supreme Court affirmed the first instance decision, agreeing with the conclusion that “Arbitral Centre of the Federal Economic Chamber, Vienna, in accordance with its Rules” – the wording of the arbitration clause – sufficiently identified the competent arbitral institution.
Supreme Court of the Republic of Belarus, 7 April 2020, Case o. 189-6/2019/64А/336К
(D UAB v. S LLC)
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
The Court granted the objection of lack of jurisdiction raised by the respondent, holding that the clause in the parties’ contract, which referred to arbitration before the “Arbitral Centre of the Federal Economic Chamber, Vienna, in accordance with its Rules”, clearly identified the competent arbitration authority.
Economic Court, Minsk Region, 22 January 2020, Case No. 189-6/2019
(D UAB v. S LLC)
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
Belarus 1. Supreme Court of the Republic of Belarus, Arbitrazh Chamber, 16 October 2014
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
Public policy: The court discusses alleged violations of a fundamental rule of due process in the arbitration on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, including the failure to communicate the names of the arbitrators, the failure to send copies of reports or letters filed in the arbitration, etc.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.