Enforcing a Kazakhstan Court Judgment in Belgium

Enforcing a Kazakhstan court judgment in Belgium is achievable, but it requires navigating a formal recognition procedure before Belgian courts. Belgium has no bilateral treaty with Kazakhstan on the mutual recognition and enforcement of civil judgments, which means the process is governed entirely by Belgian domestic private international law. The practical consequence is that a creditor cannot simply present the Kazakhstani judgment to a Belgian bailiff and proceed to seizure - the judgment must first be declared enforceable by a Belgian court through a procedure known as exequatur. This guide explains every stage of that procedure, the legal standards applied, realistic timelines and costs, the defences a debtor may raise, and the strategic choices a creditor must make before filing.

When a creditor holds a final judgment from a Kazakhstani court - whether a commercial court, a specialised interdistrict economic court, or a general civil court - and the debtor has assets in Belgium, the creditor cannot act unilaterally. Belgian enforcement agents, known as huissiers de justice or gerechtsdeurwaarders, require a Belgian enforceable title before they can seize bank accounts, real property, trade receivables or other assets located in Belgian territory.

The mechanism that creates that Belgian enforceable title is the exequatur. It is a court order issued by a Belgian court that recognises the foreign judgment and grants it the same legal force as a domestic Belgian judgment. Only once exequatur is granted can the creditor instruct a Belgian enforcement agent to proceed with actual asset recovery.

Belgium and Kazakhstan are not parties to any bilateral civil and commercial cooperation treaty that would streamline or automate this recognition. The Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters, which entered into force among certain states in recent years, does not yet bind both countries in a way that creates a simplified pathway. As a result, Belgian courts apply Articles 22 to 25 of the Belgian Code of Private International Law (CPIL), adopted under the Act of 16 July 2004, as the governing framework for all non-treaty foreign judgments.

The Belgian CPIL sets out the conditions under which a foreign judgment may be recognised and declared enforceable. These conditions are not a full merits review - Belgian courts do not re-examine the substance of the Kazakhstani decision. Instead, they apply a checklist of procedural and public-policy criteria.

Under Article 25 of the CPIL, a foreign judgment will be recognised and enforced in Belgium provided the following conditions are met:

• The effect of recognition is not manifestly incompatible with Belgian public policy (ordre public), taking into account the international character of the situation and the seriousness of the effects.
• The judgment was not obtained by fraud in the proceedings.
• The rights of the defence were respected, in particular that the party against whom enforcement is sought was duly served and had a proper opportunity to be heard.
• The foreign court had jurisdiction according to criteria that are not exclusively reserved to Belgian courts, and the foreign court's jurisdiction was not based solely on the presence of the defendant or on assets in that country.
• The judgment is final and no longer subject to ordinary appeal in Kazakhstan.
• The judgment does not conflict with an earlier Belgian judgment or an earlier foreign judgment that has already been recognised in Belgium, involving the same parties and the same subject matter.

The Belgian court does not apply Kazakhstani law to assess whether the Kazakhstani court applied its own law correctly. The review is structural and procedural, not substantive. This is a significant advantage for creditors: a well-documented Kazakhstani judgment that followed proper procedure has a strong prospect of recognition.

A practical nuance is that Belgian courts have interpreted the public-policy exception narrowly in commercial matters. Mere differences between Kazakhstani and Belgian procedural rules, or the fact that Belgian courts might have reached a different outcome, do not constitute a violation of Belgian public policy. The threshold is manifest incompatibility with fundamental Belgian legal principles.

Before filing the exequatur application, the creditor must assemble a complete dossier. Incomplete documentation is the single most common reason for procedural delay, and Belgian courts will not grant exequatur on the basis of informal or uncertified copies.

The core documents required are:

• A certified copy of the Kazakhstani judgment, bearing the official seal of the issuing court.
• Proof that the judgment is final and enforceable in Kazakhstan - typically a certificate of legal force (apostille or equivalent court certification confirming no appeal is pending).
• Proof of proper service of the original proceedings on the defendant, such as service records or acknowledgment of receipt.
• A certified translation of all Kazakhstani documents into French or Dutch, depending on the linguistic region of the Belgian court where the application is filed.

Kazakhstan is a party to the Hague Apostille Convention. This means that Kazakhstani public documents, including court judgments, can be apostilled by the competent Kazakhstani authority - the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan. An apostille simplifies the authentication chain considerably and is strongly recommended over the older legalisation route through consular channels.

The translation requirement is strict. Belgium has three official languages - French, Dutch and German - and the court's language depends on its territorial jurisdiction. Brussels courts operate in both French and Dutch, and the choice of language can have strategic implications for timing and judicial familiarity with international commercial matters. Certified translators must be sworn translators recognised by Belgian courts; translations produced by non-sworn translators are routinely rejected.

In practice, founders and creditors should consider engaging a Belgian avocat or advocaat at this stage, because procedural missteps in document preparation can add several months to the timeline. Reach out to info@vlolawfirm.com for guidance on document preparation and translation coordination before filing.

The exequatur application in Belgium is filed as a unilateral petition (requête unilatérale) before the court of first instance (tribunal de première instance / rechtbank van eerste aanleg) in the district where the debtor is domiciled or has its registered seat. If the debtor has no domicile or seat in Belgium but holds assets there, the application may be filed in the district where those assets are located.

The application is submitted to the court registry and assigned to a judge. Unlike adversarial proceedings, the initial exequatur application is typically ex parte - the debtor is not automatically notified at the filing stage. The judge reviews the dossier against the CPIL criteria and either grants or refuses the exequatur by order.

If the judge grants exequatur, the order is served on the debtor by a Belgian enforcement agent. The debtor then has one month from service to file an opposition (tierce opposition or derdenverzet) before the same court, converting the matter into adversarial proceedings. If the debtor files opposition, the case proceeds as a standard civil dispute, with exchange of written submissions and a hearing.

If the judge refuses exequatur at the ex parte stage - which is uncommon when documentation is complete - the creditor may appeal to the court of appeal (cour d'appel / hof van beroep) within one month of notification of the refusal.

The timeline from filing to initial order, assuming a complete dossier, is typically between two and four months. If the debtor files opposition, the adversarial phase adds a further six to eighteen months depending on the court's docket and the complexity of the arguments raised. Appeals to the court of appeal add another twelve to twenty-four months in contested cases.

A debtor served with an exequatur order has several grounds on which to file opposition. Understanding these defences helps creditors anticipate and pre-empt them during document preparation.

The most commonly raised defences in Belgian exequatur proceedings involving non-EU judgments are:

• Violation of the rights of the defence: the debtor argues that service in the Kazakhstani proceedings was defective, that they were not given adequate time to respond, or that they were denied a fair hearing. This defence is particularly potent when the original Kazakhstani proceedings were conducted in a language the defendant did not understand and no translation was provided.
• Public policy: the debtor argues that the content or effect of the judgment is manifestly incompatible with Belgian public policy. In commercial matters, this is difficult to sustain unless the judgment involves punitive damages at a level unknown to Belgian law, or was obtained through demonstrably fraudulent means.
• Lack of jurisdiction of the Kazakhstani court: the debtor argues that the Kazakhstani court had no legitimate basis for jurisdiction, particularly if the debtor is a Belgian company that had no real connection to Kazakhstan. Belgian courts assess this against the CPIL's own jurisdictional criteria, not Kazakhstani law.
• Conflicting prior judgment: the debtor presents an earlier Belgian or recognised foreign judgment on the same matter that contradicts the Kazakhstani decision.

A common mistake by creditors is to underestimate the service-of-process defence. Kazakhstani procedural rules on service differ from Belgian standards, and if the original proceedings were conducted without verified service on a Belgian or European defendant, Belgian courts will scrutinise the record carefully. Creditors should obtain and preserve all service documentation from the Kazakhstani proceedings before initiating the Belgian exequatur application.

The costs of enforcing a Kazakhstan court judgment in Belgium fall into three broad categories: court and procedural costs, professional fees, and enforcement costs.

Court and procedural costs in Belgium are relatively modest by international standards. Court filing fees for exequatur applications are set at a fixed level under Belgian judicial tariffs and are generally low. However, if the matter becomes adversarial following debtor opposition, additional hearing fees and procedural indemnities (rechtsplegingsvergoeding / indemnité de procédure) apply. These procedural indemnities are calculated on a scale linked to the value of the claim and can reach several thousand euros in high-value commercial disputes.

Professional fees represent the largest cost component. Belgian counsel fees for an uncontested exequatur application typically start from the low thousands of euros. A contested exequatur proceeding, including opposition and potential appeal, can reach the mid-to-high tens of thousands of euros depending on the complexity of the arguments and the duration of proceedings. Translation and apostille costs add a further amount that varies with the volume of documents.

Enforcement costs - the fees of the Belgian enforcement agent for seizure, inventory and sale of assets - are regulated by royal decree and are generally proportional to the amounts recovered. These costs are typically recoverable from the debtor as part of the enforcement process.

A non-obvious cost that many creditors underestimate is the cost of asset tracing in Belgium. Before filing for exequatur, it is prudent to verify that the debtor actually holds recoverable assets in Belgium. Belgian enforcement agents have access to certain centralised registers - including the Central Register of Movable Securities and the Crossroads Bank for Enterprises - but a thorough asset investigation may require additional professional engagement.

Scenario one: Belgian subsidiary of a Kazakhstani counterparty. A Kazakhstani supplier obtains a judgment against a Belgian trading company that purchased goods but failed to pay. The Belgian company has a registered office in Antwerp and holds bank accounts with Belgian financial institutions. The Kazakhstani supplier apostilles the judgment, obtains a certified Dutch translation, and files an exequatur application before the Antwerp court of first instance. The debtor does not file opposition within the one-month period. The creditor instructs a Belgian enforcement agent to serve a garnishment order on the debtor's bank. Recovery is completed within approximately six to eight months of the initial filing.

Scenario two: Contested enforcement against a Belgian individual. A Kazakhstani company obtains a judgment against a Belgian national who was a former director of a Kazakhstani joint venture. The Belgian individual files opposition, arguing that service in the Kazakhstani proceedings was defective because the summons was sent to a Kazakhstani address he had vacated, and that the judgment violates his rights of defence. The Belgian court schedules an adversarial hearing. The creditor produces authenticated service records from the Kazakhstani court file demonstrating that the defendant had provided the Kazakhstani address as his registered contact for the joint venture. The court dismisses the opposition and confirms exequatur. The full process takes approximately twenty-two months from initial filing to confirmed enforcement order.

These scenarios illustrate that the strength of the service record in the original Kazakhstani proceedings is often the decisive factor in contested Belgian exequatur cases.

Before committing to the Belgian exequatur route, a creditor should assess several strategic questions.

First, is the debtor's asset position in Belgium sufficient to justify the cost and time of enforcement? A judgment for a modest sum against a debtor with minimal Belgian assets may not generate a positive return after professional fees and enforcement costs. Asset tracing before filing is not optional - it is a prerequisite for rational decision-making.

Second, does the debtor have assets in multiple jurisdictions? If the debtor holds assets in both Belgium and another EU member state, the creditor may consider whether enforcement in that other jurisdiction offers a more efficient pathway. Within the EU, recognition of third-country judgments is governed by each member state's domestic private international law, so the analysis must be repeated for each jurisdiction. Belgium's CPIL framework is generally creditor-friendly in commercial matters, but other EU jurisdictions may offer faster or cheaper procedures.

Third, is there a parallel arbitration award? If the underlying dispute was resolved by arbitration rather than by a state court, the enforcement pathway in Belgium is entirely different. Arbitral awards are enforced under the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, to which both Kazakhstan and Belgium are parties. The New York Convention route is generally faster and more predictable than the CPIL exequatur route for state court judgments.

Fourth, consider the debtor's likely opposition strategy. If the original Kazakhstani proceedings were conducted entirely in Kazakh or Russian without any translation provided to a Belgian or European defendant, the rights-of-defence argument will be strong. Creditors in this position should obtain legal advice before filing to assess whether the exequatur application is viable or whether a negotiated settlement is more realistic.

For a strategic assessment of your specific enforcement situation, contact info@vlolawfirm.com. We can assist with pre-filing asset analysis, document preparation, and coordination with Belgian counsel.

Does Belgium automatically enforce Kazakhstani court judgments under any treaty?

No. Belgium and Kazakhstan have not concluded a bilateral treaty on the mutual recognition and enforcement of civil or commercial judgments. There is no automatic or simplified recognition mechanism. Every Kazakhstani judgment that a creditor wishes to enforce in Belgium must go through the domestic exequatur procedure under the Belgian Code of Private International Law. The creditor must file an application before the competent Belgian court of first instance, present a complete dossier of authenticated and translated documents, and obtain a court order granting enforceability. Only after that order is issued and served can actual enforcement measures against Belgian assets begin.

How long does the full enforcement process take, and what does it cost?

An uncontested exequatur application, where the debtor does not file opposition, typically takes between two and four months from filing to the initial court order, followed by a further one to three months for enforcement agent action against assets. If the debtor files opposition, the adversarial phase adds six to eighteen months, and an appeal can extend the process by a further one to two years. Total professional fees for an uncontested matter typically start from the low thousands of euros; a fully contested proceeding through appeal can reach the mid-to-high tens of thousands. Court filing fees are modest. Enforcement agent fees are regulated and generally proportional to the amounts recovered. Creditors should budget for translation and apostille costs as a separate line item.

What happens if the Kazakhstani judgment includes interest or penalty clauses that are unusually high?

Belgian courts apply the public-policy exception narrowly in commercial matters, but they retain the power to refuse recognition of specific elements of a foreign judgment that are manifestly incompatible with Belgian public policy. Contractual penalty clauses and interest rates that are standard in Kazakhstani commercial practice may be scrutinised if they significantly exceed Belgian norms. In practice, Belgian courts are more likely to moderate an excessive penalty element than to refuse exequatur entirely. A creditor whose judgment includes a large penalty component should obtain Belgian legal advice on whether to seek partial recognition or to address the issue proactively in the exequatur application. The core debt and standard interest are unlikely to raise public-policy concerns.

Enforcing a Kazakhstan court judgment in Belgium is a structured, achievable process for creditors who prepare carefully. The absence of a bilateral treaty means the CPIL exequatur route applies, but Belgian courts assess foreign judgments on procedural grounds rather than re-examining the merits. A complete, apostilled and translated dossier, combined with solid service-of-process documentation from the original Kazakhstani proceedings, gives a creditor a strong foundation for a successful application.

VLO Law Firm advises international clients on judgment enforcement matters involving Kazakhstan. We can assist with pre-filing strategy, document preparation and apostille coordination, translation management, and liaison with Belgian counsel for the exequatur filing. To request a consultation, contact: info@vlolawfirm.com