GILS Dispute Resolution: Belarus (2026)

CASE:

Dmitry Viltovsky, Natalia Zhuk

A Belarusian manufacturer had a dispute with a foreign buyer regarding supply agreements for components used in the assembly of complex medical equipment, as well as an agreement for commissioning services to configure the equipment’s software.

For several years, the buyer failed to pay for the delivered components and corresponded with the manufacturer about the inadequate quality of the supplied goods and the services rendered. In turn, the Belarusian manufacturer demanded that the buyer pay for the goods and services, but the buyer only partially settled the invoice.

The buyer conducted an expert assessment of certain items and filed a lawsuit against the manufacturer seeking to reduce the purchase price of the goods and recover part of the previously paid advance due to defects identified within the warranty period, as well as errors in the software that the manufacturer had been responsible for configuring.

The defendant denied the claim, arguing that the goods supplied were of proper quality, the warranty periods for filing claims regarding defects had expired, and the expert assessment conducted by the buyer did not confirm any inadequate quality. Moreover, the defendant noted that the system assembled from the supplied components had been put into operation and was being used by a medical institution.

The buyer petitioned the court to order a forensic examination of the delivered goods and services rendered. The court refused to appoint such an examination, as it had already gathered sufficient evidence to resolve the dispute on its merits. As a result, the buyer withdrew the claim, and the proceedings were terminated.

Subsequently, the Belarusian manufacturer filed a claim against the buyer to recover the cost of the delivered goods. The buyer denied the claim, again citing the inadequate quality of the goods and referring to the expert opinion it had obtained, as well as the fact that the payment deadline — which was tied to the completion date of the software configuration work — had not yet arrived, since those works had not been completed.

In turn, the buyer filed a counterclaim against the manufacturer, seeking to invalidate the manufacturer’s unilateral withdrawal from the service agreement. The manufacturer objected to the counterclaim, pointing out that it had been impossible to complete the work fully due to the buyer’s failure to provide the necessary conditions and access required to perform the services.

During the trial, the court established that the payment deadline for the delivered goods had arrived, as the manufacturer’s obligations to complete the work had ceased due to impossibility of performance, and the goods were to be paid for within a reasonable timeframe.

The court found the buyer’s arguments regarding the inadequate quality of the delivered goods unsubstantiated. Furthermore, the court concluded that these arguments had not been aimed at restoring any violated rights, but rather at evading payment.

Taking into account the circumstances of the case and the evidence presented, the court granted the plaintiff’s claim to recover the debt for the delivered goods.

The buyer’s claims in the counterclaim were also granted by the court, as it concluded that there had been no legal grounds for the manufacturer’s unilateral withdrawal from the service agreement.

As a result, the dispute between the parties — which they had been unable to resolve for several years — was successfully settled in favour of the Belarusian manufacturer.