Arbitration in EAEU states and Moldova

Comparison at a glance

Periods refer to the general or expressly identified special route; each country section explains conditions and sources.

Scroll the table horizontally.

Where institutional and ad hoc models differ

A brief orientation. Appointment, evidence assistance, interim relief and review conditions are explained country by country below.

The EAEU: five states, national rules

The EAEU comprises Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Russia. Moldova is compared separately below and is not one of these five members. Economic integration does not replace national commercial arbitration laws.

The Court of the EAEU operates under its Statute: paragraph 39 includes business challenges to Eurasian Economic Commission acts or conduct affecting Union-law rights. It is not a consensual arbitral tribunal for ordinary intercompany debt claims. Identify the dispute and competent mechanism first.

See the six-country court comparison for the competent court system and application route.

A common Convention and two legal locations

All six countries compared are parties to the New York Convention. Check each country’s treaty status, reservations and procedure. The seat connects arbitration to procedural law and annulment; the asset jurisdiction determines recognition and coercive enforcement.

Statutory basis: Convention Articles I and III–VI. Foreign institutional and ad hoc awards can fall within its scope, but recognition is not automatic. Annulment at the seat and refusal elsewhere concern different questions. See the international framework and foreign awards.

Russia

The principal statutes are 382-FZ and 5338-1. The former governs domestic arbitration and organisational matters; the latter governs international commercial arbitration within its scope. Some organisational provisions of the former also apply to Russian-seated international proceedings. Article 1(5) of 382-FZ recognises institutional and ad hoc models.

Setting aside follows Articles 230–234 of the Commercial Procedure Code or 418–422 of the Civil Procedure Code; the general period is three months from receipt, subject to exceptions. Russian-seated awards use a writ; foreign awards recognition and enforcement. Supreme Court 20-KG23-11-K5, 2023 corrected an erroneous institutional-list requirement for an individual ad hoc arbitrator and remanded. See the Russian framework.

Constitution and challenge. Articles 11–14 of 382-FZ and 5338-1 govern appointment, disclosure and challenge. The agreed procedure and institutional rules operate first. Statutory court assistance addresses appointment failure and specified questions; in institutionally administered cases certain applications may be excluded by a permitted express agreement. Ad hoc status alone does not remove every form of court assistance.

Evidence and interim relief. A Russian seat and institutional administration matter for court-assisted obtaining of evidence: Commercial Procedure Code Article 74.1 and Civil Procedure Code Article 63.1 exclude requests from case-specific tribunals. The request goes to the competent court where the evidence is located. Interim relief and preservation of evidence follow different grounds; that request exclusion must not be extended to them. See evidence assistance.

Review and execution. The organisational model does not itself turn a domestic writ into foreign recognition. For either model a Russian seat engages Commercial Procedure Code Article 236 or Civil Procedure Code Article 423; a foreign seat requires the separate recognition route. Detailed periods, documents and courts are compared in the enforcement guide.

Kazakhstan

Statutory basis: Arbitration Law 488-V of 8 April 2016, including the 1 July 2026 amendments. Articles 1–4 address scope, treaties, permanent arbitration and tribunals formed for a particular dispute. Russia’s institutional-authorisation mechanism does not automatically apply.

Article 52 governs setting aside; Article 53(2) provides one month from receipt subject to its Article 51 alternative; Articles 54–55 concern recognition and execution; Article 57 refusal. Articles 52(3) and 57(3) bar merits review at annulment and enforcement. Russia’s general three-month period cannot be imported.

Case law: Constitutional Court 13 September 2024, 51-NP upheld limited review as compatible with judicial protection. Supreme Court normative Resolution 3 of 2 November 2023, paragraphs 3–7 explains treaty sources and the distinction between domestic annulment and foreign awards. This is general guidance, not an individual enforcement disposition.

Constitution and challenge. Under Article 14 of Law 488-V, the parties agree the appointment procedure. For specified failures where no alternative applies, the permanent institution’s head acts for institutional cases and the Arbitration Chamber for ad hoc cases; paragraph 6 sets conditions and 30-day periods. Article 17 distinguishes challenges under institutional rules from the parties’ ad hoc procedure and supplies a default. Russia’s appointment-assistance structure must not be imported.

Evidence. Article 39(5) of Law 488-V allows the tribunal, or a party with its approval, to request court assistance in obtaining evidence. It does not reproduce Russia’s ad hoc exclusion. The court applies Kazakhstan’s Civil Procedure Code; tribunal approval and the court’s procedural competence still matter.

Interim relief. Article 20(6) governs tribunal measures; Article 39(1)–(4) governs state-court assistance. A party applies at the place of arbitration or the location of the property concerned. Constitution, interim relief and annulment are distinct functions, not one generic arbitration-court application. Articles 52–57 govern review and enforcement for both models.

Read more: the national route from agreement to enforcement.

Belarus

Statutory basis: Law 301-Z of 18 July 2011 on arbitral tribunals and Law 279-Z of 9 July 1999 on international arbitration, amended on 16 March 2026. Both recognise permanent and case-specific tribunals. The former excludes international arbitral courts; Article 4 of the latter also permits other economic disputes by agreement where not prohibited. Belarusian parties therefore do not invariably require the former regime.

Permanent domestic tribunals require registration or recording under Articles 3 and 6 of 301-Z; ad hoc tribunals arise by agreement under Article 4. This differs from Russia’s institutional regime. Since 1 January 2026 the Code of Civil Proceedings 359-Z governs: Chapter 41, Articles 466–473 for annulment; Chapter 44, Articles 492–497 for writs.

Code Article 467(1) provides three months from receipt and accounts for international post-award correction, interpretation or additional-award requests. Paragraph 3 permits restoration under Article 119. The two laws’ special grounds require the current texts: Russian grounds and former Belarusian codes do not replace them.

Case law: Supreme Court 19 October 2021, 156EIkh21155 upheld refusal of a Vilnius award: the claimant-location wording did not establish consent to that particular institution in the circumstances; mandatory pre-claim requirements also mattered. This pre-Code case does not prohibit every geographic clause.

Constitution and challenge depend on the applicable regime. Domestic Law 301-Z addresses them in Articles 14–17, while international Law 279-Z as amended on 16 March 2026 uses Articles 17–21. Article 16 provides three absent an agreed number. Article 17 supplies appointment fallback through the permanent institution’s chair, or the BelCCI chair for ad hoc proceedings, unless otherwise provided. Under Article 27 an unagreed language is determined by the tribunal with regard to party wishes and arbitrator abilities. Article 26 separately governs hearing venues. The agreed procedure and any applicable treaty also matter for the particular appointment.

Evidence and interim relief must be separated by regime. Domestic Law Articles 30–31 and 34 address these issues. The international law separately covers court interim measures (Article 14), tribunal measures (Article 23) and evidence assistance (Article 35). Current Law 279-Z Article 35 permits a request by the tribunal or a party with its approval; the institutional or ad hoc form does not itself import Russia’s authorised-institution restriction. The current scope of assistance and competent court must be established with the new procedural Code.

Court applications. The Code 359-Z and the applicable special statute determine jurisdiction, documents and filing periods. For awards covered by Code Chapter 44, Article 492 governs writ applications; setting aside is a separate proceeding. Foreign awards follow Chapter 51. Its definition in Article 527(4)(2) expressly includes an award made in Belarus by an arbitral tribunal situated in a foreign State. The country where the award was made is therefore not the only criterion for the Belarusian recognition procedure.

Read more: the national route from agreement to enforcement.

Kyrgyzstan

Statutory basis: Law 135 of 30 July 2002 on arbitral tribunals, full text revised on 22 July 2026. Articles 3–4 permit permanent and ad hoc tribunals; Article 7 addresses written agreements, recorded electronic exchanges and incorporation. Article 45 excludes insolvency, inheritance, life and health injury and other specified categories. Tamchy has a special regime.

Following the 2025 reform, awards cannot all be described as absolutely unchallengeable. Articles 28 and 36¹ provide annulment for disputes involving the specified state or municipal entities or equity participation. The period is 30 days from rendition, not receipt, and the application suspends execution. This special route cannot automatically be assumed for an ordinary private dispute.

Domestic enforcement follows Articles 41–42 of the Law and Civil Procedure Code Articles 418–422. The general application period is three years from the award. Refusal grounds cover capacity, notice, composition or procedure, scope, pleaded invalidity and arbitrability; there is no separate domestic public-policy ground. The Law’s Article 42 and Code Article 422 differ textually on consequences and should not be merged into an uncontested rule. Foreign awards separately engage the Convention and local procedure.

Case law: Supreme Court Constitutional Chamber 9 December 2015, 16-r upheld finality under the law then applicable. It did not annul an individual debt award; the historical holding must now be read with the 2025 exception. Special investment and tax Articles 46 and 46¹, repealed in 2025–2026, must not be cited as current.

Constitution and challenge. Articles 9–11 of Law 135 distinguish institutional appointment rules from the agreed procedure for a case-specific tribunal. A permanent tribunal’s chair assists with specified ad hoc appointment failures; that does not itself convert the entire case to institutional arbitration. Without agreement, a challenge is subject to 15 days from knowledge of constitution or the ground, followed by the statutory procedure, including specified powers of the permanent tribunal’s chair.

Evidence. Article 23 of Law 135 places production on the parties and permits a request for additional material; Article 26 governs specialists and experts. This is not an independent basis for coercive judicial production from a third party. Code Articles 73–75 concern preservation of evidence; before a state-court case arises, Article 73(2) identifies notaries or consular officers. Obtaining and preserving evidence are distinct procedures.

Interim relief: a material model difference. Article 22 of Law 135 allows tribunal measures unless otherwise agreed. However, Code Article 142(2) expressly concerns court interim relief in permanent-tribunal proceedings, and Article 143 requires a claim copy certified by that tribunal. Application is at the tribunal’s location, the respondent’s location or residence, or its property. This special court route cannot be promised for ad hoc proceedings without a separate basis. The provisions were checked against statutory publications; the official Code record is also supplied.

Read more: the national route from agreement to enforcement.

Armenia

Statutory basis: Commercial Arbitration Law HO-55-N of 25 December 2006, in its current official consolidation. Article 2(1) covers institutional and ad hoc arbitration; Article 7 written agreements; Articles 20 and 31(3) the seat and place of the award. Under Article 6(2), the Yerevan first-instance general-jurisdiction civil court handles review under Articles 34–36.2. The old Russian translation’s former court name is not current law.

Article 34 provides setting aside, generally within three months of receipt or the specified Article 33 determination; Articles 35–36 recognition, enforcement and refusal. Under Civil Procedure Code Article 321(4), the general court period for a domestic award is one year from receipt; Article 326(4) provides three years for a foreign award. These application periods differ from annulment time limits.

A significant exception: Articles 35(4) and 35.1–35.4 permit a permanent institution to send certain domestic awards directly to the execution service. This requires an Armenian seat, only the specified Armenian parties and an amount within 5,000 statutory calculation minimum salaries. Application is within one year but no earlier than three months after receipt. Not every award therefore requires a prior court writ; verify all conditions and the monetary threshold.

Case law: Court of Cassation 22 July 2016, EKD/1636/17/15 quashed the appellate decision and remanded over notice of the state-court hearing. It protects the opportunity to object at enforcement review; it is not a final refusal or a finding of defective notice in the arbitration itself.

Constitution and challenge. Articles 11–14 of Law HO-55-N apply with the agreed procedure in both models. Specified appointment failures and unsuccessful challenges engage court assistance. Under Article 6(1), those functions belong to the court at the seat. This differs from jurisdiction and award review assigned by Article 6(2) to the Yerevan first-instance general-jurisdiction civil court.

Evidence. Article 27 allows the tribunal or a party with its approval to apply to the Article 6 court or another competent court for documents, witness attendance or other evidentiary assistance. It does not exclude ad hoc proceedings. The court acts within its powers; tribunal approval does not oblige every foreign court to execute a request.

Interim relief. Article 9 permits court interim measures before or during arbitration; Article 17 governs tribunal powers. The direct-execution route in Articles 35.1–35.4 concerns the specified class of permanent-institution awards. Organisational form matters to enforcement here; court assistance being available to both models does not make all execution mechanisms identical.

Read more: the national route from agreement to enforcement.

Moldova: a separate comparison

As of 28 October 2026, Law 23-XVI/2008 on arbitration and Law 24-XVI/2008 on international commercial arbitration remain operative. Both permanent and ad hoc models are available. The international law’s Article 37 governs setting aside, 38 recognition and enforcement, 39(1) refusal and 39(2) adjournment and security. Foreign awards also engage Code Articles 475¹, 475³ and 476.

Case law: Constitutional Court Decision 72 of 18 June 2024, paragraphs 22–27: the debtor bears the notice-objection burden, while a reasonable defence opportunity remains required. The referral was inadmissible; the Court did not determine enforcement of the Ukrainian award.

Constitution and challenge in the international regime. Under Articles 2, 6 and 11–14 of Law 24/2008, both models are available, but fallback appointment and challenge functions belong to the head of the body, institution, union or association designated by the parties or institutional rules. This is not a universal state-court appointment rule. Judicial functions belong to the court competent under the Code within Article 6(2). Domestic arbitration separately engages Law 23/2008.

Evidence and interim relief. For international arbitration seated in Moldova, Article 27 of Law 24/2008 permits the tribunal or a party with its approval to ask the competent court to assist in obtaining evidence within its powers and procedural rules. It contains no Russian-style ad hoc exclusion. Article 1(1) does not extend this provision to a foreign seat. Article 9 addresses court interim relief and Article 17 tribunal measures. Preserving evidence, securing recovery and obtaining a document are distinct tasks.

The Article 37(3) period to set aside an international award is no more than three months from the applicant’s receipt. An Article 35 request for correction, interpretation or an additional award engages the special Article 37(3) starting point tied to the tribunal’s disposition of that request. This differs from the enforcement-application period. The 2008 and 2027 regimes must be separated by commencement and transitional rules.

Read more: the national route from agreement to enforcement.

Moldova: future reform and transition

Law 198 of 25 August 2026 is enacted but Article 49 commences it on 1 March 2027, replacing the 2008 statutes then. Article 50(1) links existing proceedings and challenges to the earlier framework, subject to the permitted agreement; Article 50(2) links execution to the law when the award was made. See the full transitional provisions.

The new execution Article 46 cannot be applied to a present case without the award date and transition analysis. This comparison shows legislative models and verified judicial guidance, without assuming identical rules across all six systems.