Today, effective accounts receivable management is becoming a key factor in the financial stability of any company. However, when pre-trial correspondence and negotiations have reached a dead end, the only way to collect the debt is the court.

Traditionally, the choice of judicial proceedings in which receivables will be collected is determined by a number of factors, including:

amount of debt;
presence/absence of a dispute about law;
amount of legal costs;
urgency of obtaining a court decision.

In this regard, each time when going to court, the manager and lawyers are faced with the task of analyzing all of the above factors and making a decision in the framework of which legal proceedings the receivables will be collected.

Considering the entry into force of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Republic of Belarus (CCC), established approaches to collecting receivables through the court from 01/01/2026 need a radical revision. This document united the previously existing Code of Civil Procedure and Code of Civil Procedure and became a single procedural document for resolving economic (economic) and civil disputes.

In 2026, collection of receivables in accordance with the provisions of the KGS can still be carried out in the mannerclaimAndorderlyproduction

It should be noted that the procedure for filing claims and their consideration within the framework of claim proceedings has not undergone significant changes in comparison with those previously established in the CPC, with the exception of some nuances that must now be taken into account:

- the plaintiff has the right to change the subject or grounds of the statement of claim, increase or decrease the amount of the claim only until the end of the judicial examination of the evidence.

Such a change will prevent procedural abuses by the parties, expressed in an attempt to delay the process by filing “last minute” applications to change the subject or basis of the claim under consideration.

- the combination in one claim of unrelated claims against one or more defendants will not be grounds for returning such a claim to the plaintiff.

We believe that in this case, the court, if necessary, will itself separate one or more claims from the claims joined by the plaintiff into separate proceedings.

- the right of a court allowing security for a claim to require the plaintiff to provide security for possible losses for the defendant.

Unlike litigation proceedings, companies when going to court to collect debt through writ proceedings will need to take into account a number of innovations.

In general, the KGS retains the approach that demands for the collection of funds belong to the category of cases subject to consideration in the order of writ proceedings. The novelty is the removal of the restriction on the consideration by writ of a case on the fulfillment of an obligation arising from an agreement for the assignment of a claim or transfer of a debt. Consequently, now the debt arising from the noted agreements can be collected through writ proceedings even in the absence of written recognition by the debtor of his debt.

The SSC also provides for several changes in the form and content of the application submitted in the order of writ proceedings, as well as in the list of appendices to such an application, including:

To initiate writ proceedings, you must submit an applicationon issuing a ruling on a court orderinstead of an application to initiate writ proceedings.
The application must be accompanied by evidence of compliance with the pre-trial procedure for resolving the dispute; their absence will be grounds for returning the application.
the application no longer needs to be accompanied by evidence of sending a copy of the application and documents to it to the debtor.

In addition, the Code of Civil Procedure has significantly changed the procedure for the court to issue a ruling on a court order:

the court no longer issues a ruling on the initiation of writ proceedings, but within 5 days after the application is received by the court, it immediately issues a ruling on the writ;

For reference: according to the CPC, the period for issuing a determination was 20 days.

the debtor is sent a copy of it within 3 days after the ruling on the court order is issued. In this case, a copy of the determination is not sent to the claimant;
the ruling on the court order comes into force 10 days after the debtor receives a copy of it, unless there is an application to cancel the ruling;
The only way for a debtor to object to a ruling on a court order is to submit an application to the court to cancel the ruling on a court order.

The deadline for sending such an application is no later than 10 days after receiving a copy of the ruling on the court order.

Based on the results of consideration of the application for cancellation, the court will either cancel the ruling on the court order or leave it in force.
if the debtor has not sent an application to cancel the ruling on the court order, it will come into force 10 days after the debtor receives a copy of it.

For reference: according to the Code of Criminal Procedure, the ruling on the court order entered into legal force from the moment it was issued.

Thus, writ proceedings continue to be a “magic wand” for collecting receivables from Belarusian debtors, provided there is no dispute about the right. An important advantage of the new rules of writ proceedings is the reduction of the period for issuing a ruling on a writ, which will allow debt collection to be collected even more quickly.

Important innovations of the CSC also include the establishment of the possibility of considering certain categories of cases, including cases of collection of funds, in accordance with two new types of proceedings -simplified and correspondence.

Simplified proceedings under CGS

According to the Code of Civil Procedure, simplified proceedings may be considereddemands for collection of fundsprovided that the amount of claims does not exceed 1000 b.v. for claims brought against legal entities; 300 b.v. for claims brought against individual entrepreneurs.

The statement of claim and the documents attached to it are submitted in accordance with the general requirements of the State Property Committee for this type of application.

The court itself, if the stated requirements meet the criteria for simplified proceedings, indicates in the ruling on the initiation of proceedings in the case for its consideration in the simplified procedure. Also, the court in its ruling sets a period not exceeding 10 days for the parties to provide evidence, objections to the claim (response to the statement of claim) and written explanations regarding the claims presented.

The case is considered under simplified proceedings without holding court hearings or summoning the parties within 1 month after the initiation of proceedings in the case.

The SSC also stipulates that a case initiated in summary proceedings must be considered in the ordinary course of action if one of the following circumstances exists:

the plaintiff and (or) defendant object to the consideration of the case through summary proceedings;
a counterclaim has been filed;
the petition to involve a third party in the case was granted;
there was a need to clarify additional circumstances by questioning witnesses or performing other procedural actions and other circumstances that prevent the consideration of the case through summary proceedings.

The result of consideration of a case under summary proceedings is the court making a decision without drawing up a reasoning part.

Thus, simplified proceedings are an opportunity for an organization, within a period not exceeding 1 month, to collect a debt that cannot be collected through writ proceedings or with the help of a notary’s writ of execution (for example, there is a dispute about the right, there are no originals of some documents, etc.).

Also, the advantage of simplified proceedings is the consideration of the case without holding court hearings, which can significantly reduce legal costs associated with debt collection.

Absentee proceedings under the CGS

A claim for the collection of funds, regardless of its size, can be considered in absentia proceedings if the following circumstances are simultaneously present:

The defendant, duly notified of the time and place of the court hearing, did not appear at the court session.
The defendant did not inform the court of valid reasons for failure to appear and did not ask to consider the case in his absence, or the court recognizes that the defendant is avoiding appearing in court or delaying the proceedings.
The plaintiff, who appeared at the court hearing, agreed to have the case heard in absentia.

If these circumstances exist, the court issues a ruling to consider the case in absentia proceedings.

Based on the results of consideration of the case in absentia proceedings, the court makes a decision, which is called a decision in absentia. The status of a default judgment provides the defendant with additional guarantees of protection of his rights. Thus, the defendant will have the right, within 10 days after receiving a copy of the decision in absentia, to file an application to the court that made such a decision to cancel it.

The court will cancel the default judgment if the following circumstances exist in total:

The defendant's failure to appear at the court hearing was caused by valid reasons, which the defendant did not have the opportunity to inform the court in a timely manner;
The defendant presented evidence that may influence the content of the court decision, or filed a motion to request such evidence if it is impossible for the defendant to present it.

If the court cancels the default judgment, the court resumes consideration of the case, which will then be considered according to the general rules of claim proceedings. Moreover, if the defendant fails to appear at the new consideration of the case, it cannot be considered in absentia proceedings.

Thus, absentee proceedings are another way to quickly collect debt from a debtor who adheres to the tactic: “I skip all court hearings and do not respond to any procedural documents of the plaintiff.” However, based on the peculiarities of the institution of absentee proceedings, its use can also create additional opportunities for delaying the legal process by an unscrupulous defendant. Thus, an unscrupulous defendant may exercise the right to file an application to cancel a default judgment, which will only delay the entry into force of a default judgment compared to decisions made within the framework of ordinary litigation.

Authors