Facts
The clause referred to arbitration at the claimant’s location. Several institutions potentially fitted, and the respondent had not agreed to the particular Vilnius commercial institution.
Holding and outcome
The Supreme Court upheld refusal of recognition and enforcement. Consent to that particular institution was not established; the failure to comply with mandatory pre-claim requirements under Belarusian law also mattered.
Limits of the holding
The case applied the former procedural code. It does not invalidate every geographic clause; the 2026 procedural route must be checked under the new Code.
Sources and legal references
Belarus Supreme Court, 19 October 2021, 156EIkh21155Official resource
General information. The applicable legal framework depends on the particular dispute, seat and enforcement country.