Belarus’ Supreme Court offers cooperation mechanisms for CIS judicial systems
08.10.2026
MINSK (
BelTA) – The Supreme Court of Belarus has put forward proposals to improve the international legal mechanisms for cooperation among the judicial systems of the CIS countries, Andrei Shved, Chairman of the Supreme Court of Belarus, said at the second meeting of the Council of Chairpersons of CIS Supreme (Higher) Courts, BelTA has learned.
Proper and timely notification
According to Andrei Shved, practice has exposed a number of issues that demand common attention. The first, and arguably the most important, is ensuring that the party against whom a foreign court ruling was issued – and who did not participate in the proceedings – is properly and promptly notified.
The chairman of the Supreme Court said proper notification is directly tied to safeguarding the fundamental rights of individuals to know about the case being heard against them, to have sufficient time to prepare their position, to present evidence and to exercise other procedural rights.
That is precisely why the Minsk and Chisinau Conventions, along with the Kiev Agreement, require the submission of a document confirming that such a party was notified in a timely and proper manner of the time and place of the hearing.
Analysis has shown that a significant portion of practical difficulties arises at precisely this stage, the chairman of the Supreme Court said. In certain cases, when notifying participants in proceedings who reside or are present in the territory of another state, only domestic procedural legislation was applied: court correspondence was mailed directly, or other means of notification were used.
“It is obvious that cross-border notification must take into account the special procedure set out in international treaties on legal assistance. When a court notice is sent beyond the borders of the court’s state, compliance with this procedure becomes critically important,” Andrei Shved said.
At the same time, proper notification should be assessed not only in terms of procedural compliance, he observed, emphasizing that the criterion of timeliness is equally important. A party to proceedings must be given adequate time to prepare for the hearing and to participate in it. In assessing this factor, the complexity of the case, the distance to the court, the need to obtain documents for entry into a foreign country and other objective factors may be relevant.
“However, practice demonstrates a lack of any common understanding of which documents constitute sufficient proof of proper and timely notification,” Andrei Shved said. “National courts take differing views of the certificates, notices, delivery receipts and other documents submitted. The result, in a number of cases, is refusals to recognize and enforce foreign court decisions, the return of applications, and the need to send additional requests. All of this lengthens proceedings and ultimately affects the effectiveness of judicial protection.”
Consequently, the issue of proper and timely notification calls for measures both at the level of national judicial practice and at the level of international legal regulation, the Supreme Court believes. In this regard, it was proposed to recommend that members of the council direct national courts, when sending requests (letters rogatory) for the recognition and enforcement of court decisions in a foreign state, to attach documents that indisputably show that the party against whom the ruling was made, and which took no part in the proceedings, was properly notified of it.
Document quality
The second issue raised by the chairman of the Supreme Court of Belarus concerned the quality of documents sent for the recognition and enforcement of foreign court decisions.
According to Andrei Shved, practice has shown that a significant portion of applications were returned without substantive consideration precisely because of flaws in their preparation. The reasons are often entirely fixable. They include a lack of the necessary powers on the part of the claimant’s representative or the expiry of a power of attorney; failure to meet the requirements for the form and content of an application; and the absence of information in the application about the debtor, their place of residence or the location of their property. In certain cases, copies of decisions certified by a foreign court were not submitted, nor were documents confirming their entry into force, information on prior enforcement, or documents confirming payment of the state fee.
“At first glance, we are talking about technical matters. But the consequences of such shortcomings are of a different nature. The return of documents means lost time, extra costs and the need to reapply for judicial protection,” Andrei Shved said.
It was therefore proposed to recommend that council members direct national courts to strictly observe the requirements of international treaties and the legislation of the state concerned. The materials attached to an application (commission) for the recognition and enforcement of a court decision should also necessarily include a payment document confirming payment of the state fee, or a document confirming entitlement to an exemption from it.
Public policy exception in practice
A review of the materials showed that courts in a number of CIS countries (Belarus, Russia, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan) refused to recognize and enforce foreign court decisions when they found that the consequences of such recognition or enforcement ran counter to the fundamental principles of their national legal system.
According to the head of the highest judicial body, the review recorded differences in how this ground is applied in practice. “Of course, public policy falls within the sphere directly tied to the sovereignty of the state, the particularities of its legal system and national interests. So it is obvious that full unification of approaches is hardly possible here,” Andrei Shved observed, suggesting that council members exchange views on the issue.
At the same time, he expressed the hope that this international institution would be applied only in exceptional cases, where enforcement of a foreign court ruling would clearly harm national sovereignty.
Refining the international legal framework
To resolve the above issues and others, it was proposed to advance simultaneously towards developing the international legal framework that guides the judicial systems of the CIS countries. It therefore seems necessary to establish a temporary working group at the council level to improve the provisions of the Kiev Agreement and the Chisinau and Minsk Conventions, and to task it with drafting and submitting, at the council’s 2028 meeting, proposed amendments to those international treaties.
The second meeting of the Council of Chairpersons of CIS Supreme (Higher) Courts took place in Minsk on 8 October. In December 2024, Belarus took over the chairmanship of the council. The main theme of the meeting agenda concerns the recognition and enforcement of judgments of foreign courts of the CIS member states. The topic is relevant and significant for every state in the CIS. It is directly linked to the enforcement of national court judgments and, accordingly, to the protection of both the countries’ citizens and business entities.
Proper and timely notification
According to Andrei Shved, practice has exposed a number of issues that demand common attention. The first, and arguably the most important, is ensuring that the party against whom a foreign court ruling was issued – and who did not participate in the proceedings – is properly and promptly notified.
The chairman of the Supreme Court said proper notification is directly tied to safeguarding the fundamental rights of individuals to know about the case being heard against them, to have sufficient time to prepare their position, to present evidence and to exercise other procedural rights.
That is precisely why the Minsk and Chisinau Conventions, along with the Kiev Agreement, require the submission of a document confirming that such a party was notified in a timely and proper manner of the time and place of the hearing.
Analysis has shown that a significant portion of practical difficulties arises at precisely this stage, the chairman of the Supreme Court said. In certain cases, when notifying participants in proceedings who reside or are present in the territory of another state, only domestic procedural legislation was applied: court correspondence was mailed directly, or other means of notification were used.
“It is obvious that cross-border notification must take into account the special procedure set out in international treaties on legal assistance. When a court notice is sent beyond the borders of the court’s state, compliance with this procedure becomes critically important,” Andrei Shved said.
At the same time, proper notification should be assessed not only in terms of procedural compliance, he observed, emphasizing that the criterion of timeliness is equally important. A party to proceedings must be given adequate time to prepare for the hearing and to participate in it. In assessing this factor, the complexity of the case, the distance to the court, the need to obtain documents for entry into a foreign country and other objective factors may be relevant.
“However, practice demonstrates a lack of any common understanding of which documents constitute sufficient proof of proper and timely notification,” Andrei Shved said. “National courts take differing views of the certificates, notices, delivery receipts and other documents submitted. The result, in a number of cases, is refusals to recognize and enforce foreign court decisions, the return of applications, and the need to send additional requests. All of this lengthens proceedings and ultimately affects the effectiveness of judicial protection.”
Consequently, the issue of proper and timely notification calls for measures both at the level of national judicial practice and at the level of international legal regulation, the Supreme Court believes. In this regard, it was proposed to recommend that members of the council direct national courts, when sending requests (letters rogatory) for the recognition and enforcement of court decisions in a foreign state, to attach documents that indisputably show that the party against whom the ruling was made, and which took no part in the proceedings, was properly notified of it.
Document quality
The second issue raised by the chairman of the Supreme Court of Belarus concerned the quality of documents sent for the recognition and enforcement of foreign court decisions.
According to Andrei Shved, practice has shown that a significant portion of applications were returned without substantive consideration precisely because of flaws in their preparation. The reasons are often entirely fixable. They include a lack of the necessary powers on the part of the claimant’s representative or the expiry of a power of attorney; failure to meet the requirements for the form and content of an application; and the absence of information in the application about the debtor, their place of residence or the location of their property. In certain cases, copies of decisions certified by a foreign court were not submitted, nor were documents confirming their entry into force, information on prior enforcement, or documents confirming payment of the state fee.
“At first glance, we are talking about technical matters. But the consequences of such shortcomings are of a different nature. The return of documents means lost time, extra costs and the need to reapply for judicial protection,” Andrei Shved said.
It was therefore proposed to recommend that council members direct national courts to strictly observe the requirements of international treaties and the legislation of the state concerned. The materials attached to an application (commission) for the recognition and enforcement of a court decision should also necessarily include a payment document confirming payment of the state fee, or a document confirming entitlement to an exemption from it.
Public policy exception in practice
A review of the materials showed that courts in a number of CIS countries (Belarus, Russia, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan) refused to recognize and enforce foreign court decisions when they found that the consequences of such recognition or enforcement ran counter to the fundamental principles of their national legal system.
According to the head of the highest judicial body, the review recorded differences in how this ground is applied in practice. “Of course, public policy falls within the sphere directly tied to the sovereignty of the state, the particularities of its legal system and national interests. So it is obvious that full unification of approaches is hardly possible here,” Andrei Shved observed, suggesting that council members exchange views on the issue.
At the same time, he expressed the hope that this international institution would be applied only in exceptional cases, where enforcement of a foreign court ruling would clearly harm national sovereignty.
Refining the international legal framework
To resolve the above issues and others, it was proposed to advance simultaneously towards developing the international legal framework that guides the judicial systems of the CIS countries. It therefore seems necessary to establish a temporary working group at the council level to improve the provisions of the Kiev Agreement and the Chisinau and Minsk Conventions, and to task it with drafting and submitting, at the council’s 2028 meeting, proposed amendments to those international treaties.
The second meeting of the Council of Chairpersons of CIS Supreme (Higher) Courts took place in Minsk on 8 October. In December 2024, Belarus took over the chairmanship of the council. The main theme of the meeting agenda concerns the recognition and enforcement of judgments of foreign courts of the CIS member states. The topic is relevant and significant for every state in the CIS. It is directly linked to the enforcement of national court judgments and, accordingly, to the protection of both the countries’ citizens and business entities.