Evidence and court assistance: six countries

What is compared and where to start

Identify the assistance required: submitting an available document, obtaining it from another person, hearing a witness, preserving perishable evidence or protecting assets. These measures have different legal bases. A tribunal’s power to invite party evidence does not itself authorise a state court to compel a third party.

The Russian conditions for a special evidence request cannot simply be applied abroad. The comparison below is followed by detailed Russian provisions and five further national sections. See the court-jurisdiction comparison to identify the relevant state court.

Six countries at a glance

Russia: submitting evidence and requesting assistance

Parties submit evidence under the applicable arbitration rules. A special mechanism governs assistance from a state court in obtaining materials. The request concerns the tribunal hearing the dispute; the institution performs administrative functions.

Institutional arbitration seated in Russia

Article 30 of 382-FZ and Article 27 of the International Commercial Arbitration Law provide for a request by the tribunal or a party with its consent. Articles 63.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and 74.1 of the Commercial Procedure Code govern conditions and procedure. Requests identify the materials and facts to be established and go to the court where the evidence is located.

Ad hoc and foreign seats

This particular evidence-assistance mechanism excludes ad hoc proceedings and requires a Russian seat. Paragraph 39 of Plenum Resolution 53 expressly provides for refusal of a request from an ad hoc tribunal or a foreign-seated tribunal. These conditions concern that mechanism; party submission of their own evidence is a separate question.

Examination of a request

The law limits the available evidence categories and protects third-party rights and legally protected secrets. Under paragraph 38 of Resolution 53, the court acts within the request. Evaluation of evidence for deciding the dispute remains with the arbitrators.

Preservation of evidence

Paragraph 41 of Resolution 53 allows courts to consider a party’s application to preserve evidence under the relevant conditions. Preservation addresses safeguarding evidentiary material and differs from obtaining evidence through Articles 63.1 and 74.1.

The request and permissible evidence

Statutory basis: Article 30 of 382-FZ, Article 27 of Law 5338-1, Article 63.1 of the Civil Procedure Code and Article 74.1 of the Commercial Procedure Code. The special request originates with the tribunal and may be given to a party for filing. A party cannot bypass the tribunal’s required involvement. Identify the parties, dispute, specific evidence, its location and the facts to be established.

The Civil Procedure Code permits written and physical evidence and audio/video recordings; the Commercial Procedure Code permits written and physical evidence and other documents and materials. This is not unlimited disclosure. Check protected information, third-party rights and refusal grounds; the request goes to the court where the evidence is located. Statutory periods provide up to 30 days for execution and three days to transmit the resulting materials.

Supreme Court guidance: assistance boundaries

Case law: paragraphs 37–40 of Plenum 53 require a Russian seat and institutional administration; paragraph 39 excludes this special request for ad hoc or foreign-seated proceedings. The court stays within the request and does not evaluate the dispute’s merits. This is Plenum guidance, not an individual decision granting a particular document.

The restriction does not bar parties from presenting documents they possess or agreeing exchanges. It does not automatically extend to interim relief or preservation of evidence: paragraph 41 treats preservation separately. Each mechanism requires its own basis, competent court and procedural conditions.

Collection must be followed by disclosure and examination

Statutory basis: Articles 26, 29 and 27 of 382-FZ. Evidence enters the arbitral record with an opportunity for the other party to inspect and respond. For experts, appointment, questions, reports and questioning matter; administrative collection does not replace adversarial examination.

Case law: Supreme Court 10 September 2026, 305-ES25-4373(2,3) remanded the relevant part for assessment of expert evidence and party rights in an ICAC domestic dispute governed by Law 382-FZ. See the composition and procedure ground for possible consequences.

Protected information, witnesses and refusal of assistance

The lists in Civil Procedure Code Article 63.1(3) and Commercial Procedure Code Article 74.1(3) differ. The former names written and physical evidence and audio/video recordings; the latter names written and physical evidence and other documents and materials. Compelled witness examination or a court-appointed examination is not included in these special request mechanisms. This does not prevent the tribunal from examining admissible witness or expert material under its own procedure.

Paragraph 4 of each provision requires refusal, among other things, where third-party rights may be affected, the dispute is non-arbitrable, or access would be given to state secrets or protected official, commercial, banking or other information concerning non-participants. The last condition is not a blanket ban on every commercially sensitive document: the statute expressly connects it with third parties. Identify the document, its holder and the relevant disputed facts precisely.

Orders executing or refusing these requests are not appealable under paragraph 40 of Plenum Resolution 53 and paragraphs 5 and 7 of the relevant Code provisions. Assistance does not decide whether the claim is proved: the material goes to the tribunal for examination with the parties. Obtaining the arbitral case file during setting-aside or enforcement proceedings is a different mechanism under paragraph 54 of Plenum Resolution 53.

Russia: comparing three models

Scroll the table horizontally →

The comparison of court assistance in obtaining evidence does not cover the separate preservation-of-evidence mechanism. See paragraph 41 of Plenum Resolution 53.

Armenia: documents and witnesses in ad hoc proceedings too

At any stage, Commercial Arbitration Law Article 27 allows the tribunal or a party with its approval to seek an order requiring a person to provide relevant documents or evidence to a party or the tribunal, secure a witness’s attendance, or obtain other assistance. It is not restricted to permanent institutions. The Russian restriction on the special evidence request for ad hoc arbitration therefore does not carry over.

Article 6(1) identifies the court at the seat; Article 27 also refers to another competent court. Assistance remains within the requested court’s powers. “Another competent court” requires an actual jurisdictional basis; it does not permit arbitrary forum selection or oblige a foreign court to execute the request.

Under Code Article 333(4)–(8), identify the material’s holder, recipient, documents and assistance sought; for a witness, give the name and registered address. A participant attaches tribunal approval. Paragraph 7 expressly distinguishes certification by a permanent institution from notarisation in ad hoc proceedings. The application also has requirements concerning the arbitration’s procedural stage, agreement and court fee.

Code Article 332(3) generally allows one month from actual or constructive knowledge of the supporting circumstances, unless the statute or agreement supplies another period. Under Article 334(1), specified document-production and evidence requests are decided without a hearing no later than the day after receipt. That is the period for deciding the application, rather than a promise that documents or a witness will be produced within one day.

A foreign seat requires separate analysis: Article 27 is not among the territorial exceptions in Article 1(3). Availability of judicial interim measures under Article 9, which is an exception, does not make Article 27 evidence requests equally available irrespective of the seat. See the Armenian procedure.

Belarus: international-arbitration assistance and evidence preservation

Law 279-Z Article 35 permits the international tribunal or an approved party to request assistance in obtaining evidence. Articles 1 and 4 cover the permanent international court established under that law and an ad hoc international tribunal situated in Belarus. Choosing ad hoc arbitration does not itself exclude the mechanism; Russian authorised-institution status is not a Belarusian requirement.

The request may be addressed to a state court or a court in another State. A Belarusian court acts within its jurisdiction and under its own procedural law. Mentioning a foreign court does not bind it: evidence abroad requires an available request, powers and procedure under the requested State’s law and any applicable treaty. Article 4’s scope also prevents treating the entire statute as automatically applicable to every foreign arbitration.

Preserving evidence is a separate task. Code Article 235(4) expressly allows the international tribunal or an approved party to apply where the arbitration takes place or the relevant property is located. Paragraph 5 allows requests to other holders, inspection or a judicial commission to record and preserve evidence. The risk of later impossibility or difficulty of production must be shown; preservation is not a substitute for collecting any material a party would find useful.

Under the domestic Law 301-Z, Articles 31 and 34 govern party evidence and expert examination: the tribunal may invite further material and require a party to supply documents for an expert. These powers are distinct from state coercion against an outside holder. Article 30 on judicial interim protection serves a different purpose; it is not itself a general evidence-production provision for domestic arbitration.

A useful sequence is to identify the domestic or international regime, specify the material and holder, explain its relevance, choose production or preservation, and provide tribunal approval where required. A foreign seat, a holder abroad and an ad hoc tribunal are three separate facts. See arbitration in Belarus for the full framework.

Kyrgyzstan: party evidence and the court’s separate powers

Under Law 135 Article 23, parties produce evidence, the tribunal may invite further material, and it must examine the available evidence directly. Article 26 permits an expert or specialist and requests for necessary material from a party. These provisions operate subject to the agreement and special statutory rules; they do not give arbitrators coercive powers to fine or compel testimony from an outsider.

Code Article 66 provides for a state-court evidence request and consequences of non-compliance, but governs evidence in a civil court case. It should not be read as automatically allowing a party in any arbitration to initiate an independent production proceeding merely with tribunal approval. Institutional administration alone does not promise that result, nor should Russia’s authorised-institution restriction be assigned to Kyrgyz ad hoc arbitration: a specific legal basis for the court application must first be established.

If material risks disappearing before a court case begins, Code Article 73(2) identifies a different route: evidence preservation by a notary or consular official under the statutory procedure. It preserves evidence; it does not decide the dispute or create a universal right to compel disclosure from anyone. Judicial preservation under Articles 73–75 remains tied to those provisions’ requirements and the court case.

For material in another country, examine that country’s court powers and the applicable international assistance procedure in advance. A foreign arbitral seat or tribunal approval does not itself create additional powers for a Kyrgyz court. Distinguish a request for party production, expert work, preservation and an application for state coercion. See the Kyrgyzstan guide for national details.

Kazakhstan: tribunal consent, court orders and a foreign seat

For arbitration in Kazakhstan, Law 488-V Article 39(5) permits a request by the tribunal itself or a party with its consent. Code Article 73(10) expressly regulates a party’s application with that consent and refers to judicial assistance under paragraph 4. These provisions do not exclude a tribunal merely because it is ad hoc. A party’s application without the required tribunal consent should not, however, be equated with the statutory request.

Paragraph 24 of Supreme Court normative Resolution 3/2023 directs the request to the court at the place of arbitration. It must identify the evidence, the facts it would establish or disprove, obstacles to obtaining it independently and its location: Code Article 73(5). A request for an equipment-delivery log, for example, should explain the relevance of particular entries and why the holder will not supply them. A general demand for all of an opponent’s documents does not replace this information. See the state-court comparison for district-court versus SMES jurisdiction.

State coercion attaches to a court’s demand. Under Article 73(6), the holder sends the material directly to the court or hands it to a person carrying the court’s request; corporate-dispute evidence must be requested and received directly by the court. Paragraphs 7–8 provide for liability for non-compliance and preserve the production obligation. They do not authorise arbitrators themselves to fine an outside document holder or compel a witness’s attendance. The particular act and availability of compulsion must follow the relevant procedural rule.

For a foreign seat, the fact that a document is located in Kazakhstan does not replace identifying a legal basis for assistance. Paragraph 24 of Resolution 3 links the evidence application to the place of arbitration. Paragraph 23 separately permits interim relief supporting foreign arbitration at the assets’ location subject to the applicable treaty. The availability of asset attachment therefore does not establish the same route for obtaining documents: the latter requires its own applicable basis and competent court.

Paragraphs 23 and 24 of the Supreme Court’s Resolution 3/2023 address different functions: securing the claim and obtaining evidence. I would document tribunal consent and describe the required material before applying, then ensure that the other party can review and respond to what is obtained. The court assists with collection; the tribunal remains responsible for evaluating the evidence to decide the dispute.

Moldova: domestic proceedings, international arbitration and the limits of assistance

Identify the governing statute first. In domestic proceedings under Law 23/2008, Articles 22 and 25 govern presentation and examination of evidence in arbitration, while Article 23 allows a party, before or during arbitration, to ask the competent court for protective measures and the recording of particular factual circumstances. The application includes the arbitration agreement and a copy of the claim or, before filing, the prescribed proof of notification. Recording a disappearing condition of an object should be distinguished from general document production.

Specific court assistance with evidence in international arbitration is provided by Law 24/2008 Article 27: the tribunal or a party with its approval may apply. The provision does not exclude ad hoc arbitration. Under paragraphs 25–26 of CSJ Plenum Resolution 2/2015, as amended in 2017, the tribunal is advised first to issue an order identifying the evidence, relevant facts, obstacles to obtaining it and its location. The Plenum links the application to the state court that would hear the dispute without the arbitration clause.

Plenum paragraph 27 directs the court to treat the request as a judicial request under Code Articles 125–126, with notice to participants; properly notified absence does not prevent the act. The resulting records and materials are sent to the tribunal. For production, Code Article 119 requires identification of the material and reasons it cannot be obtained independently; a court need not grant an unjustified request plainly intended to delay proceedings or obtain manifestly irrelevant evidence.

Compulsion operates through the state court. Code Article 119(3) requires a holder who lacks the evidence or cannot produce it on time to tell the court within five days. Culpable non-compliance by a non-participant in the circumstances specified by the provision may attract a judicial fine; a fine does not remove the production obligation. An arbitral order does not itself confer state-court powers over an outside person.

A foreign seat presents an important statutory limit: Article 1(1) extends Articles 8, 9, 38 and 39 to seats outside Moldova, but does not extend Article 27. This particular evidence-assistance mechanism therefore cannot be promised to a foreign-seated tribunal merely because material is in Moldova. Article 9 interim relief is separate. The evidence-assistance Plenum explains the request process, while CSJ case 2r-449/23 concerns protection pending foreign-award recognition, not permission for unrestricted cross-border evidence collection. Law 198/2026 enters into force on 1 March 2027; its new rules do not replace the present provisions before then.