DISPUTE RESOLUTION  ·  KAZAKHSTAN

Enforcement of Foreign Judgments & Arbitral Awards in Kazakhstan

Bond Stone advises on the recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments and international arbitral awards in Kazakhstan — from initial enforceability assessment through enforcement proceedings before Kazakhstan courts, asset tracing, and execution by court bailiffs.

Enforcing a foreign judgment or arbitral award in Kazakhstan is a separate procedure from the original proceedings. The applicable route depends on whether the award is an arbitral award under the New York Convention, a judgment from a court of a state with which Kazakhstan has a bilateral treaty, or a judgment from a non-treaty jurisdiction where enforcement is sought on the basis of reciprocity. Bond Stone advises on all three tracks and manages the full enforcement mandate from filing through execution.

Governed by: Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 377-V dated 31 October 2015, Articles 501–504 in Chapter 57 (recognition and enforcement of foreign court decisions and foreign arbitral awards) and Articles 253–255 in Chapter 20 (enforcement of arbitral awards); Law "On Arbitration" No. 488-V dated 8 April 2016; New York Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958). Authority: adilet.zan.kz

Enforcement Routes in Kazakhstan

Type of Decision Legal Basis Enforcement Path Risk Level
Foreign arbitral award New York Convention (1958) Application to the first-instance court (specialised interdistrict economic court where the parties are legal entities or individual entrepreneurs) at the place of the arbitration or the debtor's location — ruling followed by issuance of writ of execution. Not the AIFC Court, on its current decisions (see below) Lower — NY Convention grounds for refusal are limited
AIFC Court judgment Constitutional Statute No. 438-V, Art. 13(8); AIFC Court Rules 2018, Part 30. The New York Convention does not apply No recognition proceeding — Execution Order from the AIFC Court, translation into Kazakh or Russian, then enforcement in the same manner and on the same terms as a Kazakhstan court judgment Lower — established mechanism
Foreign court judgment — treaty state Treaty on legal assistance: the Chisinau Convention of 7 October 2002, the Minsk Convention of 22 January 1993 (neither now covers Ukraine), or a bilateral treaty Application to the first-instance court, unless the treaty provides otherwise — recognition under treaty provisions without review of the merits Medium — depends on treaty terms
Foreign court judgment — non-treaty state Reciprocity (Civil Procedure Code, Art. 501) — no automatic right Kazakhstan courts may refuse enforcement — filing a fresh claim on the merits in Kazakhstan courts is often the more reliable alternative Higher — no guaranteed pathway

Foreign awards and the AIFC Court. The AIFC Court is not, at present, a route for awards made elsewhere. In Posco Co. Ltd. v National Centre for Complex Processing of Mineral Raw Materials (Case No. AIFC-C/CFI/2025/0066, 27 May 2026) and 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: its jurisdiction rests on Article 13 of the Constitutional Statute, and Articles 45–47 of the AIFC Arbitration Regulations cannot widen it. Earlier orders enforcing foreign awards were made without full argument. Both decisions are under appeal. A combined appeal was heard on 30 September 2026, and the Court recorded on 8 October 2026 that judgment was awaited (Roads Department of the Ministry of Infrastructure of Georgia v Todini Costruzioni Generali S.p.A., Case No. AIFC-C/CFI/2025/0025). No appeal judgment had been published by 6 November 2026. Until then, a foreign award belongs in the ordinary Kazakhstan 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.

Enforcement Process — Arbitral Awards

1

Enforceability assessment

Bond Stone reviews the award and arbitration agreement for compliance with New York Convention requirements — written arbitration agreement, valid award, no grounds for refusal under Article V of the Convention (public policy, proper notice, arbitrability). Simultaneously assesses debtor's assets in Kazakhstan — registered property, bank accounts, participatory interests in Kazakhstani entities.
2

Application to Kazakhstan court

Bond Stone files the enforcement application with the competent first-instance court: the specialised interdistrict economic court where the parties are legal entities or individual entrepreneurs, otherwise a court of general jurisdiction. Venue is the place of the arbitration or the debtor's residence or seat or, if these are unknown, the location of the debtor's assets (Civil Procedure Code, Art. 503; Supreme Court Normative Resolution No. 3 of 2 November 2023, para. 18). Required documents include the original or certified copy of the award, original or certified copy of the arbitration agreement, and certified translations into Kazakh or Russian. The court considers the application without re-examining the merits of the dispute.
3

Writ of Execution

Upon recognition, the court issues a writ of execution — the Kazakhstan enforcement instrument. The writ of execution is presented to the private or state court bailiffs who execute against identified assets. Bond Stone manages the transition from court recognition to bailiff execution, including interim protective measures where assets may be at risk of dissipation.
4

Asset execution & recovery

Court bailiffs levy execution against the debtor's bank accounts, receivables, real property, and participatory interests in Kazakhstani entities. Private bailiffs are paid by the debtor, from 3% to 25% depending on the category of case and the amount recovered, capped at 10,000 MCI, and only on full or partial recovery (Law on Enforcement Proceedings No. 261-IV, Art. 118(1), (2)). Bond Stone monitors execution, coordinates with bailiffs, and advises on parallel measures including account freezing applications and travel bans where available under Kazakhstan procedural law.

Grounds for Refusal — New York Convention Article V

Kazakhstan courts may refuse recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award only on the grounds set out in Article V of the New York Convention. Bond Stone assesses each ground at the outset of every enforcement mandate:

Incapacity / invalid agreement

Party lacked capacity, or arbitration agreement invalid under applicable law

Proper notice not given

Party was not given proper notice of proceedings or was unable to present its case

Award beyond scope

Award deals with matters beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement

Irregular tribunal or procedure

Composition of arbitral tribunal or procedure not in accordance with the arbitration agreement

Award not yet binding

Award has been set aside or suspended by a court of the country where it was made

Public policy

The subject matter is not arbitrable under Kazakhstan law, or recognition or enforcement would be contrary to the public policy of Kazakhstan — most commonly invoked ground, applied inconsistently for large claims involving state-connected parties

Experience

Bond Stone has managed cross-border enforcement mandates for clients based in the UAE, Turkey, Europe, and Central Asia against Kazakhstani respondents — and for Kazakhstani clients enforcing against foreign counterparties through international arbitration and foreign courts. Client confidentiality is maintained across all matters.

New York Convention · KZ

Foreign Arbitral Award — Kazakhstan Enforcement

Enforcement of a foreign arbitral award against a Kazakhstani respondent under the New York Convention. Strategy: recognition application to the first-instance court, writ of execution obtained, bailiff levy against bank accounts.

Pre-action · KZ–Turkey · 2026

Kazakhstan–Turkey Works Dispute — Enforcement Strategy

Bond Stone is advising a Kazakhstani manufacturer in a dispute with a Turkish contractor over defective works, including forum strategy, evidence and enforcement risk in both jurisdictions.

AIFC Court · Kazakhstan

AIFC Court Judgment — Enforcement

Enforcement of an AIFC Court judgment in Kazakhstan on the same terms as a Kazakhstani court judgment, under an Execution Order. Bond Stone acted at both the AIFC Court and enforcement stages.

Bilateral Treaty · KZ · CIS

CIS Judgment — Treaty-based Recognition

Recognition and enforcement of a CIS-state court judgment in Kazakhstan under a bilateral judicial cooperation treaty. Strategy: treaty-based application to the first-instance court, without review of the merits, writ of execution obtained.

Litigation · KZ · International

Non-treaty Jurisdiction — Fresh Claim Strategy

Where enforcement of a foreign judgment from a non-treaty jurisdiction was unlikely to succeed, Bond Stone advised filing a fresh claim on the merits in Kazakhstan courts — achieving full recovery through the domestic court system.

Enforcement · KZ · Multi-jurisdiction

Asset Tracing — Pre-judgment Protective Measures

Pre-judgment asset tracing and account freezing applications in parallel with court proceedings — preventing dissipation of debtor assets before judgment. Assets identified through Kazakhstan property and entity registries.

Why Bond Stone

Primary authority: adilet.zan.kz  ·  court.aifc.kz

Discuss your enforcement matter

Contact Bond Stone for a confidential enforceability assessment and enforcement strategy for your foreign judgment or arbitral award in Kazakhstan.

info@bondstonelaw.com
+7 (701) 729 76 72 — Almaty

Request a Confidential Consultation ← Dispute Resolution Hub Debt Collection in Kazakhstan →