Which state court? Six national frameworks

A state court and an arbitral tribunal are different forums

In Russia, the expression arbitrazh court also denotes a state commercial court. An arbitral tribunal is a sole arbitrator or panel acting under an arbitration agreement. Choosing between a state commercial court and a general-jurisdiction court is different from choosing between litigation and arbitration.

Identify the relief first: deciding the debt dispute, contesting tribunal jurisdiction, obtaining evidence, setting aside an award or enforcing it. The competent court, judicial level and territorial connection may differ. The court for the underlying claim is not necessarily the court for every later application.

Choose the court system, level and territorial venue

First assess the nature of the relationship and the parties’ status, including statutory exceptions. Next determine the judicial level assigned to this particular application: a local court, economic court, appeal court or another expressly designated body. Finally identify venue: the seat, debtor’s address, assets, evidence or another statutory connection.

A party’s nationality and the contract’s international character do not answer all three questions. Naming a state court by agreement does not replace statutory jurisdiction rules; permitted venue agreements require a separate assessment.

Six countries at a glance

The table describes the state-court structure. The sections below explain exceptions, specific arbitration-related applications and judicial guidance; an institutional or ad hoc model alone does not determine the competent court system.

Russia: general and economic disputes, followed by the specific application

For an ordinary civil dispute, compare Civil Procedure Code Article 22 with Commercial Procedure Code Articles 27–28. State commercial courts hear economic disputes and other business-related matters assigned by law. Organisations’ and entrepreneurs’ status usually matters, but party labels alone are insufficient: the nature of the claim and special provisions must also be checked.

For example, an individual’s ordinary personal consumer claim against a company belongs to general jurisdiction, while two companies’ business supply-payment dispute belongs to a state commercial court. A corporate dispute within Article 225.1 may belong to a commercial court even if a participant is not an individual entrepreneur. These are illustrative examples; statutory exceptions and the actual claim require separate checking.

Judicial guidance: paragraph 11 of Supreme Court Plenum Resolution 53 applies the nature of the claims and party composition together to arbitration assistance and supervision. Where individual and corporate debtors face inseparable claims, the enforcement application goes to a general-jurisdiction court against all debtors. The paragraph separately addresses specified corporate and other specially allocated disputes.

Next identify the court level. Setting aside a Russian-seated award and issuing a domestic writ are assigned to a district court or a regional-level state commercial court according to the applicable jurisdiction. For a foreign award, the general-jurisdiction route uses the regional-level court rather than a district court; the commercial route uses the regional commercial court. See Civil Procedure Code Article 26 and Articles 410, 418 and 423; Commercial Procedure Code Articles 31–32 and Articles 230, 236 and 242; Plenum Resolution 53 paragraphs 12–14.

Territorial rules differ too: appointment or challenge of an arbitrator normally connects to the seat, while an evidence request connects to the evidence location. Annulment, a writ and a foreign award have their own rules and permitted party-agreement options. See the detailed enforcement comparison, evidence assistance and jurisdiction objections.

Kazakhstan: district court, SMES or appellate court

For an ordinary private-law claim, begin with Code Articles 26–27. Property and non-property disputes between legal entities and/or individuals carrying on business as individual entrepreneurs go to a specialised interdistrict economic court (SMES), unless legislation assigns the case elsewhere. A payment dispute between two supply companies will normally fall within SMES jurisdiction. A consumer claim against a corporate seller normally goes to a district or equivalent court: having a business on only one side does not make it an economic-court case.

Corporate disputes listed in Article 27(1) also go to SMES: an individual shareholder or member does not by that fact remove the case from this category. However, inheritance division and division of spouses’ joint property containing shares or participatory interests are expressly excluded from the corresponding corporate-dispute ground. Check the other special categories in Article 27, including insolvency, matters involving minors and specified investment disputes. After selecting the type of court, determine territory: the defendant’s address under Article 29 is the general rule; the specified real-property claims follow the property’s location under Article 31. The claim amount or the label “commercial” does not replace these checks.

Setting aside an award requires a different court level. Under Code Article 464(2), the application goes to the relevant appellate court; for an award made in Kazakhstan, this is linked to the place where the arbitration was heard. Separate statutory rules cover awards made abroad under Kazakhstan law, linked to the permanent institution’s location or the place where the tribunal was formed in Kazakhstan. This special provision cannot be extended to every foreign award. A set-aside application does not become a first-instance SMES case simply because both parties are companies.

A writ is sought from a first-instance court. Paragraph 18 of Supreme Court normative Resolution 3 of 2 November 2023 expressly distinguishes the ordinary court from SMES according to the arbitration parties’ status. Territorial jurisdiction follows Article 253(1) for domestic awards and Article 503(1) for foreign awards in the Code: the provisions identify the place of arbitration, the debtor’s residence or the legal entity’s governing-body location, and, where those addresses are unknown, the location of assets. A Kazakhstan debtor or assets can identify the local enforcement court for an overseas award; they do not confer jurisdiction to annul it.

Assistance during arbitration does not automatically go to the set-aside court. Paragraph 23 of Resolution 3/2023 directs interim-relief applications to the place of arbitration or of the assets targeted by the measures; for foreign arbitration, it identifies the assets’ location subject to the applicable treaty. Proof that a claim has been filed in arbitration accompanies the application under Code Article 155. Under paragraph 24, a party’s request for evidence assistance, with the tribunal’s consent, goes to the court at the place of arbitration and is examined under Article 73(4), (10). The subject matter and party-status checks under Articles 26–27 still distinguish district courts from SMES.

The practical judicial authority is the Supreme Court’s normative guidance: paragraph 18 identifies the enforcement court, while paragraphs 23–24 identify where to seek interim relief and evidence. These are general directions rather than the disposition of one contract dispute or permission to select any convenient court. An application to the AIFC Court requires a separate jurisdictional basis: Code Article 24 distinguishes referring a dispute to that court from referring it to arbitration. See the Kazakhstan guide and the example of AIFC judicial supervision.

Belarus: one procedural code since 2026, economic courts retained

Since 1 January 2026, the unified Code of Civil Proceedings 359-Z applies. Procedural unification did not abolish economic courts. Ordinary civil litigation, including consumer claims, generally goes to a district or city court under Article 43. Article 45 allocates economic cases by their connection with entrepreneurial or other economic activity and the parties involved. The usual first-instance forum is an oblast or Minsk economic court; legislation assigns certain categories to another level.

The shortcut “an individual is involved, so use a district court” is unreliable. Article 45(2) assigns specified business-related cases to economic courts regardless of party status, including disputes arising from founding or participation in a legal entity, business-reputation cases in that sphere, and insolvency and bankruptcy. A personal consumer claim against a retailer and an individual shareholder’s corporate dispute therefore require different classification.

Arbitration supervision depends on the application. Code Article 466 places annulment of a domestic tribunal’s award at the tribunal’s location, while expressly assigning annulment of an award of a Belarus-based international arbitral tribunal or other permanent arbitral body to the oblast or Minsk economic court at the body’s location. For ad hoc arbitration, paragraph 4 supplies the territorial connection: the place of arbitration in Belarus. For international ad hoc arbitration, Law 279-Z Article 43 retains the special court allocation: the oblast or Minsk economic court at that place. For domestic ad hoc arbitration, Code Articles 43–45 determine the court type. Assistance likewise depends on its function: Law 301-Z Article 30 concerns interim protection, and Law 279-Z Article 35 concerns evidence assistance in international arbitration.

A writ for a Belarusian award follows Article 492: the debtor’s residence, place of stay or location, or assets if that location is unknown, with court type determined under Articles 43–45. A foreign award instead requires recognition and enforcement under Chapter 51. Article 44(1)(13) assigns cases involving individuals to an oblast or Minsk city court, except cases allocated to economic courts or the Supreme Court; economic cases follow Article 45. Article 528 supplies the territorial connection: the debtor, or assets if the debtor has no known location in Belarus. The recipient of a domestic-award application therefore cannot automatically be reused for a foreign award.

In Supreme Court case 156EIkh21155 of 19 October 2021, the Economic Chamber reviewed refusal to enforce a Vilnius arbitral award, including the certainty of institutional choice. It illustrates the distinct role of state enforcement review, but arose under the former Economic Procedure Code. A new application follows the current Code; procedures and deadlines are detailed in the Belarus guide.

Kyrgyzstan: economic litigation also starts in a district court

Kyrgyzstan distinguishes civil and economic cases, but that does not mean choosing between a district court and a separate first-instance branch of state arbitrazh courts. Code Articles 25 and 28 define civil jurisdiction for district and equivalent courts, subject to statutory exceptions. Article 256(1) expressly assigns economic cases to district courts. An interdistrict-court reference based on the old wording is outdated: Law 39 of 11 April 2020 changed it, as explained in the Code commentary published by the Supreme Court.

Under Article 255, an economic case concerns entrepreneurial or other economic activity of legal entities and individual entrepreneurs; general civil procedure applies with Chapter 25 modifications. Article 256 lists contractual, property, corporate and other economic disputes. An individual’s personal consumer claim does not become economic merely because the defendant is a company. Both examples may nevertheless begin in a district court: classification of the proceedings changes, not necessarily the court’s name. Territorial jurisdiction remains a separate question.

For a domestic arbitral award, Code Article 418 directs a writ application to the district or equivalent court at the debtor’s residence or location, or assets if that location is unknown. Foreign-award recognition and enforcement follow Articles 429–438: Article 438 incorporates the relevant rules, including Article 429’s territorial connection. The same court level does not turn these applications into the same procedure.

Annulment is not a universal next step for every private arbitration. Law 135 Article 36¹ creates a special regime for disputes involving the state or public participation specified there: the application goes to the district or city court at the tribunal’s location within the prescribed 30-day period. Judicial interim protection of an arbitral claim separately requires Code Articles 142–143: the documents and access to that mechanism are expressly linked to a permanent arbitral tribunal and cannot automatically be extended to ad hoc proceedings. Conditions are detailed in the Kyrgyzstan guide.

A useful distinction appears in the Constitutional Chamber’s 29 October 2014 decision on Sabirov and others’ application, pages 9–11. It explained that arbitrazh courts in former Code Article 65(4) meant state courts whose operation ended after the 2004 reform, rather than private tribunals; review of the provision was terminated. The historical decision helps distinguish the institutions. The current forum for an economic claim comes from today’s Code Article 256.

Armenia: general civil jurisdiction and a designated supervisory court

An ordinary contract dispute between companies and a consumer civil claim do not follow a Russian-style division between two court branches. Under Code Articles 1 and 18, civil cases go to first-instance courts of general jurisdiction: the relevant regional court or the Yerevan first-instance civil court of general jurisdiction. Exceptions include bankruptcy, administrative and constitutional jurisdiction, and cases specifically assigned to the Anti-Corruption Court. A party’s corporate status alone does not establish a separate economic-court forum.

Territorial jurisdiction is a further step: Code Article 21 generally follows the defendant’s residence or location, subject to special rules for the claim. A valid arbitration clause raises a different question: a timely objection may prevent the court from hearing the merits, but does not turn the state court into an arbitral institution. Law Article 8(3) provides special protection for a financial-service consumer’s access to court.

Arbitration assistance and supervision follow specific allocations. Under Law Article 6(1), judicial interim measures, specified appointment, challenge and termination questions, and assistance with evidence go to the court at the seat. Paragraph 2 assigns review of a preliminary jurisdiction ruling, setting aside, and recognition and enforcement under Articles 35–36.2 to the Yerevan first-instance civil court of general jurisdiction. Selecting an annulment court solely by the debtor’s address would therefore be wrong.

This designated judicial route also covers recognition of foreign arbitral awards; it is distinct from jurisdiction over an ordinary claim against a foreign company. Certain domestic institutional awards qualify for a special direct-enforcement mechanism, explained with its conditions and exceptions in the Armenia guide. That mechanism does not change the court for an annulment application.

The cases illustrate two different checks. In Gevorgyan v Ardshinbank, 7 April 2018, cassation preserved remittal of the consumer claim to a state court: the pre-dispute clause did not remove the financial consumer’s special protection. In the 20 December 2024 decision, ԵԴ/52031/02/22, it distinguished the appeal route for arbitration-related court orders: an erroneous instruction in an order cannot itself create a right of appeal. The practical sequence is to identify the relief, then verify the first-instance court and the available review route separately.

Moldova: the ordinary first-instance court and the court of appeal’s special role

An ordinary contract dispute in Moldova does not involve the Russian choice between a separate state arbitrazh-court system and general-jurisdiction courts. Under Code Articles 33 and 33¹, judecătorii hear civil cases involving individuals, organisations and public authorities unless legislation provides otherwise. A payment dispute between two companies and an individual’s claim against a company therefore normally begin in a judecătorie. Specialist judges or a commercial panel do not create a separate state “arbitration court”. An arbitration clause raises a separate question about the state court’s ability to decide the merits.

Territorial jurisdiction is checked next. Under Code Article 38, an ordinary claim is brought where the defendant resides or the legal entity has its seat. Article 39 provides alternatives: a consumer, for example, may also sue where they reside or where the contract was made or performed. Article 40 provides exclusive territorial rules, including specified real-property claims and shareholders’ claims at the company’s seat. Article 42(1) addresses multiple defendants with different addresses. Territorial choices do not displace special jurisdiction for a particular category of case.

Judicial assistance is addressed by CSJ Plenum Resolution 2 of 30 March 2015, amended on 16 October 2017. Paragraph 21 links interim relief in domestic arbitration to the ordinary court that would have jurisdiction without the clause. Paragraph 25 uses the same approach for evidence assistance under Article 27 of Law 24/2008, requested by the tribunal or a party with its approval. Appointment and challenge of an arbitrator additionally require checking the particular function and applicable statute; the existence of a clause does not send every issue to a court of appeal.

Setting aside a domestic award and obtaining a writ are separate applications to the judecătorie that would hear the civil dispute without the clause: Code Articles 477(1) and 482(1). Plenum paragraph 32 expressly assigns setting aside to judecătorii by reference to Article 33¹. Check the original subject matter and territorial rules, rather than simply the arbitration institution’s address. For international arbitration in Moldova, Article 37 of Law 24/2008 also supplies the set-aside grounds; the dispute’s international character does not by itself make the award foreign.

A foreign award has a different addressee: Code Article 475¹(1) sends recognition and enforcement to the court of appeal for the debtor’s domicile, residence or seat, or, where that connection in Moldova is absent or unknown, for the location of assets. The court of appeal acts as the specifically designated recognition court, rather than hearing an appeal on the arbitrators’ merits decision. See the Moldova guide for the domestic/foreign distinction. The routes applicable on 28 October 2026 must not be replaced with the rules of new Law 198/2026, which enters into force on 1 March 2027.

A concrete state-court selection example is CSJ’s order of 18 May 2026, 2ac-84/26, OTP Bank v individual defendants. Resolving a negative jurisdictional conflict between courts in Bălți and Chișinău, CSJ referred the debt claim to Judecătoria Chișinău, Centru seat. It relied on current state-register domicile information; a defendant’s telephone confirmation was merely corroborative, while an old address was insufficient to send the case to another district. This decision concerns territorial jurisdiction over an ordinary claim. A different issue arose in CSJ case 2ra-185/18 of 6 February 2019: invoking the clause after participating at first instance without objection was too late; the appellate order removing the claim from the docket was quashed and the merits remitted to the appellate court. The Plenum’s paragraphs 21, 25 and 32 separately support the routes for arbitration assistance and setting aside.

If the other party invokes an arbitration clause

An arbitration clause does not turn a state court into an arbitral institution or remove its duty to examine jurisdiction. Where a merits claim is already before a state court, the existence and timing of a clause-based objection matter separately. The court examines the applicable statutory conditions for referral; national rules and consequences of participation differ.

Where consent is denied—for example, a document’s signature is alleged to be forged—identify the proper procedural remedy first. A claim on the underlying obligation, a separate agreement dispute, review of a preliminary jurisdiction ruling and annulment of the final award are distinct. See protection before and after the award.

What to establish before filing

State the relief sought; establish the seat and enforcement country; identify the parties’ status and the underlying dispute’s nature; locate the special competent-court provision; then check venue, time limits, documents and parallel proceedings. This sequence helps avoid presenting a sound legal position to the wrong court.