GILS Dispute Resolution: Turkmenistan (2025)

TURKMENISTAN

Ikbal Said Alaudin, Managing Partner; Lachin Amandurdyyeva, Senior Associate

CASE №1:

In July 2025, Hukuk Consulting, the associated office of the GRATA International, was the first to initiate the application of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, adopted on 10 June 1958 in New York City (hereinafter – the “New York Convention”), in Turkmenistan.

For the first time, the Arbitration Court of Turkmenistan considered an Application for Recognition and Enforcement of a Foreign Arbitral Award in the territory of Turkmenistan (hereinafter – the “Application”) on the basis of the provisions of the New York Convention.

This case became a significant event in Turkmenistan’s law enforcement practice and opened new prospects for the recognition of international arbitral awards in the country.

When filing with the court at the outset, it is important to take into account the existence of three key conditions provided for in the Law of Turkmenistan “On Accession to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards,” namely:

1) Turkmenistan shall ensure the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards only if they were made in the territory of a Contracting State;

2) Turkmenistan shall apply the Convention only to disputes which, in accordance with national legislation, are considered commercial;

3) Turkmenistan shall apply the Convention only to court decisions rendered after the Convention entered into force for Turkmenistan.

Under the first condition, Turkmenistan recognizes and enforces foreign arbitral awards only if the state in whose territory the award was made is a Contracting State to the New York Convention. This condition reflects the principle of reciprocity enshrined in the Convention itself. The second condition allows Turkmenistan to limit the scope of application of the New York Convention solely to commercial disputes, meaning that it will not apply to arbitral awards rendered in cases that do not fall under the definition of “commercial” under the country’s domestic legislation.

Finally, the third condition concerns the date on which the New York Convention entered into legal force for Turkmenistan. This condition served as the basis for the Debtor’s legal position in the consideration of the Application. The main issue was determining the date of entry into force of the New York Convention for Turkmenistan, as the correct determination of this date would decide whether the arbitral award was subject to recognition and enforcement in the territory of Turkmenistan under the provisions of the New York Convention.

At the same time, the Applicant presented a legal position, supported by relevant arguments and evidence, refuting the Debtor’s arguments. The Applicant pointed out that, at the time of submitting the Application, the New York Convention was already in effect for Turkmenistan and, consequently, its provisions were applicable to the arbitral award under consideration. The Debtor’s arguments were not reflected in the court’s decision and, accordingly, were not addressed in the reasoning section.

When examining the Application, the Arbitration Court of Turkmenistan assessed the nature of the dispute in terms of its qualification as a commercial dispute under Turkmenistan’s legislation and found that the dispute did not fall within this category.

The consideration of this Application became the first example of the practical application of the New York Convention in Turkmenistan and revealed both the prospects and the limitations associated with its implementation in the national legal system.

The fact that the Application was considered on the basis of the New York Convention has laid an important foundation for the further development of the practice of recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Turkmenistan.