Articles

Enforcing Foreign Arbitral Awards and Judgments in Kazakhstan

November 5, 2026

By Alel Aliasheva — Partner, Bond Stone International Law Firm, Almaty

Winning an award or a judgment abroad is only half the task when the debtor's assets are in Kazakhstan. The award has to be recognised by a Kazakhstani court and turned into a writ of execution before bailiffs can act on it. The route is well defined, and for arbitral awards it is short. Most failures come from avoidable mistakes in documents, timing and the choice of court.

The legal framework

Article 501 of the Civil Procedure Code of 31 October 2015 No. 377-V is the starting point. Foreign court judgments and foreign arbitral awards are recognised and enforced where this is provided for by legislation or by an international treaty ratified by Kazakhstan, or on the basis of reciprocity.

For arbitral awards, the main instrument is the New York Convention of 1958, in force for Kazakhstan since 18 February 1996, alongside the European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration of 1961. The Code governs procedure, such as the competent court and the time limits, to the extent it does not conflict with the Convention.

The key practical guidance is Normative Resolution of the Supreme Court No. 3 of 2 November 2023, on how courts should apply this legislation. It confirms that the grounds for refusal in the New York Convention are exhaustive for foreign awards.

Which court, and how fast

Under Article 503 of the Code, the application goes to the court at the place where the dispute was heard, or at the debtor's place of residence or the location of the legal entity's governing body. If the debtor's residence or location is unknown, the application is filed at the location of the debtor's property. Where the parties are legal entities or individual entrepreneurs, the Supreme Court's Resolution directs an arbitral award application to the specialised interdistrict economic court. Otherwise it goes to the court of general jurisdiction.

A single judge considers the application within fifteen working days of its receipt by the court. The debtor and the applicant are both notified. Failure to attend does not stop the hearing, unless the debtor asks for a postponement and gives reasons.

The court cannot review the award or judgment on the merits. It decides only whether to issue a writ of execution or refuse it. A ruling to issue the writ takes effect immediately.

What to file

For a foreign arbitral award, the application needs:

The application must also include proof that the state duty has been paid. Under the Supreme Court's Resolution, the translation is certified by an official or sworn translator or by a diplomatic or consular agent, and the court may not ask for proof that the award has entered into force. Documents from states party to the Hague Apostille Convention need an apostille. Others need consular legalisation.

Defects here are costly in time rather than fatal. If documents are missing, or the application is late, the court returns it without considering it. That ruling can be challenged, and a corrected application can follow, but days are lost that a debtor may use to move assets.

Practice can be stricter than the text. In Posco Co. Ltd. v National Centre for Complex Processing of Mineral Raw Materials (AIFC Court, Case No. AIFC-C/CFI/2025/0066, 27 May 2026), the judgment records that the Almaty court twice returned an application to enforce an ICC award, and that a panel upheld the return. The reasons included a missing certified arbitration agreement, an uncertified translation and no proof that the debtor had received the award.

Time limits

The application must be filed within three years. Article 503 counts this period from the end of the time allowed for voluntary performance, and the Supreme Court's guidance follows the same approach. That period is the one stated in the award. If a foreign award states none, neither the Code nor the Resolution says when time starts, although some practitioners look to the law of the seat.

Article 501 refers to three years from the date the act enters into force. Applicants should therefore work to the earlier of the two dates. A court may restore a missed period if the reason is valid, but this should be treated as a fallback and not as a plan.

Grounds for refusal

The debtor carries the burden of proving most New York Convention grounds:

Where the European Convention applies, an award set aside at the seat on a ground outside Article V(1)(a) to (d) of the New York Convention can still be enforced. A 2025 practitioner review of 24 reported cases decided from 2011 to 2025 found the award enforced in 12. It reports that the Almaty Region Court refused enforcement on 15 March 2022 because the respondent had not been duly notified (HUNLAND IMPEX BV v a Kazakhstani farming business, No. 1999-22-00-2am/9).

The court may raise two further grounds on its own initiative: the dispute cannot be arbitrated under Kazakhstani law, or enforcement would be contrary to public policy.

The Code also contains a separate ground for domestic awards, where a binding decision already exists on the same dispute between the same parties. The Supreme Court has clarified that this ground does not apply to foreign awards.

Public policy

Public policy has historically been the most contested ground. The Law on Arbitration defines it as the foundations of the legal order set out in Kazakhstan's laws. The Supreme Court's Resolution describes these as the fundamental rules of the social and economic order, and says the ground applies only in exceptional cases. A cassation ruling cited in a 2025 academic review is narrower still: an award violates public policy only if enforcement would involve actions directly prohibited by law, or actions that harm state sovereignty or security or affect the interests of large social groups.

A court may raise the point itself, but it tests only whether enforcement conflicts with public policy, not the content of the award. A debtor's argument that the tribunal simply reached the wrong result should fail, because the court cannot revisit the merits. The same review reports finding no Kazakhstani decision that refused a foreign award on this ground.

Foreign court judgments

Foreign court judgments follow the same procedure in Article 503, but the legal basis is different and the route is less predictable.

Judgments from certain post-Soviet states can rely on regional treaties, chiefly the Chisinau Convention of 7 October 2002, which has largely replaced the Minsk Convention of 1993 (for Russia, since 28 June 2023), and the Kyiv Agreement of 20 March 1992. These apply only to state court decisions, as the Supreme Court's Resolution confirms. They no longer help with Ukrainian judgments: Ukraine has withdrawn from the Minsk Convention and the Kyiv Agreement (the depositary records the withdrawals as effective on 19 May 2024 and 11 October 2024) and signed but never ratified the Chisinau Convention.

Without a treaty, the applicant must rely on reciprocity. Kazakhstan has no treaty with many major jurisdictions, including England and the United States, so reciprocity is often the only argument available. For a contract with a Kazakhstani counterparty, arbitration usually offers a far clearer route to enforcement than a foreign court judgment.

AIFC Court judgments and IAC awards

The Astana International Financial Centre has its own court and arbitration centre. Under Article 13(8) of the Constitutional Law on the AIFC, AIFC Court decisions are enforced in Kazakhstan in the same way and on the same terms as decisions of Kazakhstani courts, with a translation into Kazakh or Russian. The creditor applies to the AIFC Court for an Execution Order under Part 30 of its Rules. In Michael Wilson & Partners v CJSC Kazsubton (Case No. AIFC-C/CFI/2025/0021, 23 September 2025), the Court said that an Execution Order has the same status as a writ of execution issued by the ordinary courts. It can go to a bailiff directly or through the Republican Chamber of Private Enforcement Agents.

Awards of the AIFC International Arbitration Centre are recognised and enforced under the same procedure and terms as arbitral awards rendered in Kazakhstan, under Article 14 of the Constitutional Law on the AIFC of 7 December 2015 No. 438-V. Creditors also apply directly to the AIFC Court, because parties who agree to IAC arbitration accept that court's jurisdiction. The Court regularly makes such orders, usually giving the debtor 14 days to apply to set them aside. For contracts with a Kazakhstani counterparty, an AIFC clause can therefore be a practical option.

The AIFC Court is not, at present, a route for awards made elsewhere. In Posco and then in Naftogaz of Ukraine v Gazprom (Case No. AIFC-C/CFI/2026/0002, 7 July 2026), the Court held that it has no jurisdiction to enforce ICC awards from tribunals seated in Switzerland, and in Naftogaz it set aside its own order of 15 May 2026. Earlier orders enforcing foreign awards were made without full argument. Permission to appeal was granted because first-instance judges disagreed, and the Court of Appeal heard both appeals on 30 September 2026. No judgment had been published on the Court's website by 6 November 2026. Until then, a foreign award belongs in the ordinary Kazakhstani courts, which Posco confirms have jurisdiction. The same applies to foreign court judgments. In Elhassan v Ahmed (Case No. AIFC-C/SCC/2025/0008, 16 June 2025), the Court declined jurisdiction over a settlement concluded in Dubai court proceedings, following an earlier decision of Chief Justice Lord Mance on an English judgment.

Practical steps

  1. Locate the assets first. The debtor's location determines the competent court, and the assets decide whether enforcement is worth the cost.
  2. Prepare documents early. Apostille or legalisation and certified translation take time, so start them when the award is issued.
  3. Diarise the earlier deadline. Count the three years from the earlier of the two possible dates.
  4. Consider interim measures. Ask local counsel at the outset whether assets can be secured before the hearing.
  5. Plan for the challenge. Prepare proof of proper notice, and of delivery of the award, in advance, because improper notice is among the debtor's most common arguments.

Legal basis

Related: Court Litigation in Kazakhstan · AIFC Practice

This article is general information and not legal advice. To discuss an enforcement matter, please contact the firm.