GILS Dispute Resolution: Belarus (2025)

BELARUS

CASE №1:

Alexander Korsak, partner; Lizaveta Tsianiuta, associate

We were approached by the largest manufacturer of flax textiles from the Republic of Belarus (hereinafter – the Client) regarding the recognition and enforcement of the decision of the International Arbitration Court at the Belarusian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (hereinafter – the IAC at the BelCCI), taken against the Austrian company, in the territory of Austria.

The case was complicated by the fact that the arbitration award was made in 2003, i.e. more than 20 years ago. In many countries this would mean that recognition would be impossible. It was necessary to involve Austrian and Belarusian lawyers to give an opinion on the possibility of recognizing and enforcing such an award, taking into account the time that had passed.

Despite the fact that the application for recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award was filed only 22 years after its adoption, the Austrian court recognized the arbitral award as enforceable.

Subsequently, the Austrian company filed an appeal against the decision of the Austrian court. The Austrian company referred, in particular, to a violation of its right to defense by the IAC at the BelCCI, expressed, among other things, in the refusal to accept written evidence, and the expiration of the period for recognition and enforcement of the arbitration award.

We managed to prove that the IAC at the BelCCI didn’t violate the Austrian company’s right to defense, including lawfully refusal to accept written evidence, and that the deadline for recognition and enforcement of the arbitration award was not violated by the Client.

The court of appeal issued a decision to dismiss the Austrian company's appeal.

The court of cassation – The Supreme Court of Justice – also maintained the arbitration award in force.

CASE №2:

Dmitry Viltovsky, partner; Natalia Zhuk, counsel

A dispute arose between two organizations under a contract for the manufacture and supply of household chemicals under the Buyer's own trademark. The Buyer made an advance payment in full for the goods supplied under the contract. As the goods were being manufactured, individual batches of goods were transferred to the Buyer. Nevertheless, the Buyer avoided picking the last batch of manufactured goods. The Seller repeatedly informed about the readiness of this batch of goods for transfer to the Buyer and the need to pick the goods made to his order. However, the Buyer did not pick the last batch of goods.

In this regard, the Seller filed a lawsuit in the Economic Court to compel the Buyer to pick the goods. During the consideration of this statement of claim, the Buyer filed a claim against the Seller for recognition of the contract as not concluded due to the failure of the parties to agree on all the essential conditions (technical characteristics of the supplied goods, delivery dates). In this regard, the proceedings on the claim for compulsion to pick the goods were suspended until the decision is made on the statement of claim to recognize the supply contract as not concluded.

The court refused to satisfy the Buyer's claim to recognize the supply contract as not concluded.

On a claim for compulsion to pick the goods the Parties decided to settle the dispute in a mediation procedure and, therefore, the claim proceedings for compulsion to pick the goods were terminated.

However, the Buyer avoided participating in mediation and filed a new claim against the Seller for a refund of payment in respect of previously delivered batches of goods due to their inadequate quality. In total, goods were delivered to the Buyer in amount equivalent to 190,000 US dollars. However, the Buyer clarified the claims and decided to first claim the cost of one batch produced.

In this process, the Seller stated that the quality of the goods could have deteriorated due to Buyer fault (transportation of goods and long-term storage in improper conditions). The Seller also disputed the product sampling acts and the test reports provided by the Buyer.

The complexity of this dispute was that the Buyer provided test reports of the goods with indicators that did not meet the requirements established by the legislation and the contract, and the Seller provided test reports with indicators confirming the proper quality of the goods. Based on the results of repeated tests of goods samples in different laboratories, research and comparison of all the evidence presented in the case in their entirety, the Seller managed to substantiate that the quality of the supplied goods met the requirements. The dispute between the Parties was successfully resolved in favor of the Seller.