Enforcing a Kazakhstan Court Judgment in Germany

Enforcing a Kazakhstan court judgment in Germany is achievable, but it requires a separate recognition and enforcement procedure before a German court. Germany and Kazakhstan have no bilateral treaty on mutual recognition of judgments, which means the process is governed by German domestic law - specifically the rules on foreign judgment recognition under the German Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung, ZPO). The practical outcome depends on whether the Kazakhstan judgment meets a set of procedural and substantive conditions that German courts apply on a case-by-case basis. This guide explains the legal framework, the step-by-step procedure, realistic timelines, cost levels, available defences, and the strategic choices creditors must make before filing.

Germany is a signatory to numerous bilateral and multilateral enforcement treaties, but Kazakhstan is not among the covered jurisdictions for any treaty that Germany has ratified in the civil and commercial sphere. The Lugano Convention and the Brussels Recast Regulation apply only within the EU and certain European states. Kazakhstan falls outside both instruments.

In the absence of a treaty, German courts apply Section 328 ZPO, which sets out the conditions under which a foreign judgment may be recognised, and Section 722 ZPO, which governs the separate enforcement action (Vollstreckungsklage) that a creditor must bring before a German court to obtain an enforceable title. Recognition is not automatic and is not granted by an administrative authority. A creditor must file a lawsuit in Germany and obtain a German judgment declaring the Kazakhstan decision enforceable.

A non-obvious requirement is that the creditor must also demonstrate that Kazakhstan courts would, in principle, recognise German judgments in equivalent circumstances. This reciprocity condition under Section 328(1)(5) ZPO is assessed by German courts based on available legal materials about Kazakhstan's approach to foreign judgments. In practice, German courts have found that reciprocity with Kazakhstan is not guaranteed, which makes this one of the most contested elements of the procedure. Creditors should obtain a legal opinion on Kazakhstan's current recognition practice before filing in Germany.

Section 328 ZPO lists five grounds on which a German court must refuse recognition of a foreign judgment. These grounds are exhaustive, and a German court may not refuse recognition on any other basis. The five grounds are:

• The foreign court lacked international jurisdiction under German conflict-of-jurisdiction rules.
• The defendant was not properly served with the originating document in sufficient time to prepare a defence.
• The foreign judgment is irreconcilable with a German judgment or an earlier foreign judgment already recognised in Germany.
• Recognition would be manifestly incompatible with German public policy (ordre public).
• Reciprocity is not guaranteed.

The ordre public ground is the most frequently invoked in practice. It covers both procedural and substantive public policy. A Kazakhstan judgment obtained in proceedings where the defendant had no meaningful opportunity to present its case, or which awards punitive damages of a type unknown to German law, may be refused on this basis. German courts apply the ordre public filter narrowly - they do not review the merits of the Kazakhstan judgment - but they will refuse recognition where the result of enforcement would be fundamentally incompatible with core German legal principles.

Section 722 ZPO provides the procedural vehicle. The creditor files a Vollstreckungsklage before the German Landgericht (Regional Court) that has jurisdiction over the debtor's assets or domicile. The German court then examines the Section 328 conditions and, if satisfied, issues a judgment declaring the Kazakhstan decision enforceable. That German judgment then serves as the enforcement title under German law.

The process has several distinct stages, each with its own requirements and timeline.

Obtaining certified copies of the Kazakhstan judgment. The creditor must obtain an officially certified copy of the Kazakhstan court judgment, together with a certificate confirming that the judgment has entered into legal force (res judicata). Both documents must be apostilled under the Hague Apostille Convention, to which both Kazakhstan and Germany are parties. The apostille confirms the authenticity of the public document and is affixed by the competent authority in Kazakhstan - typically the Ministry of Justice or the issuing court, depending on the document type.

Translating the documents into German. All documents submitted to a German court must be in German or accompanied by a certified German translation. The translation must be prepared by a sworn translator recognised in Germany. This is a formal requirement, not a discretionary one. Submitting uncertified translations is a common mistake that delays proceedings and may result in the court refusing to process the application.

Filing the Vollstreckungsklage. The creditor files a statement of claim (Klageschrift) before the competent Landgericht. Jurisdiction is typically determined by the location of the debtor's assets or registered office in Germany. The claim must set out the facts of the Kazakhstan proceedings, attach the certified and apostilled documents with certified translations, and address each of the Section 328 conditions proactively. Courts expect the creditor to demonstrate, with supporting evidence, that none of the recognition bars applies.

Service on the defendant and exchange of pleadings. The German court serves the claim on the defendant. The defendant has an opportunity to file a defence raising any of the Section 328 grounds. This is the stage at which reciprocity arguments, jurisdictional challenges, and ordre public objections are typically raised. The exchange of written pleadings can take several months, particularly if the defendant is well-resourced and mounts a detailed defence.

Oral hearing and judgment. The Landgericht will typically schedule an oral hearing. The court issues its judgment, which either grants or refuses recognition and enforcement. If the court grants the Vollstreckungsklage, the resulting German judgment is an enforceable title under German law and can be used to initiate standard German enforcement measures - attachment of bank accounts, seizure of assets, or garnishment of receivables.

Appeals. Either party may appeal to the Oberlandesgericht (Court of Appeal) and, on points of law, to the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice). Appeals extend the timeline significantly.

In practice, from filing to a first-instance judgment, creditors should plan for a minimum of twelve to eighteen months. Contested proceedings with appeals can extend well beyond that.

The cost structure has several layers, and many creditors underestimate the total outlay.

Court fees. German court fees for a Vollstreckungsklage are calculated based on the value of the claim (Streitwert). The higher the judgment amount, the higher the court fee. Fees are set by the Gerichtskostengesetz (Court Fees Act) and scale progressively. For a judgment in the mid-six-figure range, court fees at first instance can reach the low tens of thousands of euros.

Legal fees. German lawyers' fees are regulated by the Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz (RVG), which sets statutory minimum fees based on the claim value. In practice, for complex cross-border enforcement matters, lawyers typically charge on a time-and-materials basis above the statutory minimum. Professional fees for a contested first-instance Vollstreckungsklage usually start from the low tens of thousands of euros and can rise substantially if appeals are pursued.

Translation and apostille costs. Certified translations of lengthy court judgments and procedural documents represent a non-trivial cost. For a complex Kazakhstan judgment with supporting procedural records, translation costs can reach several thousand euros. Apostille fees in Kazakhstan are modest by comparison.

Expert evidence on Kazakhstan law. If the reciprocity question is contested, the German court may require or the parties may wish to submit expert evidence on Kazakhstan's approach to recognising foreign judgments. Commissioning a qualified expert opinion on Kazakhstan law adds to the overall cost.

Risk of adverse costs. German civil procedure follows the loser-pays principle. If the Vollstreckungsklage fails, the creditor bears both its own costs and the defendant's recoverable legal costs. This risk must be factored into the decision to proceed.

A common mistake is to treat the enforcement procedure as a formality after winning in Kazakhstan. In reality, the German proceedings are a full civil action with genuine litigation risk, and the cost-benefit analysis must be conducted carefully before filing.

If you are assessing whether to pursue enforcement in Germany, we can help structure the setup correctly the first time. Contact us at info@vlolawfirm.com.

Understanding the defences available to the debtor is essential for creditors planning their strategy and for debtors assessing their options.

Jurisdictional challenge. The debtor may argue that the Kazakhstan court lacked international jurisdiction under German conflict-of-jurisdiction rules. German courts apply their own standards to assess whether the foreign court had a sufficient jurisdictional basis. If the Kazakhstan court assumed jurisdiction on a basis that German law does not recognise - for example, on the basis of the plaintiff's nationality alone - the German court may refuse recognition.

Defective service. If the defendant was not properly served with the originating process in Kazakhstan, or was not given sufficient time to prepare a defence, the German court will refuse recognition. This ground is particularly relevant where the defendant is a German company that was served by post or publication in Kazakhstan without following the procedures required under the Hague Service Convention or bilateral arrangements.

Ordre public. The debtor may argue that the Kazakhstan judgment violates German public policy. This argument succeeds where the Kazakhstan proceedings were fundamentally unfair - for example, where the defendant had no opportunity to present evidence, where the judgment was obtained by fraud, or where the substantive outcome is incompatible with fundamental German legal principles. German courts apply this ground narrowly but do apply it.

Reciprocity. As noted above, the debtor may argue that Kazakhstan does not, in practice, recognise German judgments. This is a factual and legal question. The creditor bears the burden of demonstrating that reciprocity exists or that the reciprocity condition should not apply in the circumstances.

Irreconcilability. If there is a conflicting German judgment or a prior foreign judgment already recognised in Germany covering the same parties and subject matter, the Kazakhstan judgment cannot be recognised.

In practice, debtors with assets in Germany and competent German counsel will typically raise multiple defences simultaneously. Creditors should anticipate this and prepare their filing accordingly, addressing each potential ground proactively rather than reactively.

Scenario one: a Kazakhstan commercial arbitration award versus a Kazakhstan court judgment. A creditor holding a Kazakhstan arbitration award is in a materially better position than one holding a court judgment. Germany is a party to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, and Kazakhstan is also a signatory. Enforcement of a Kazakhstan arbitral award in Germany proceeds under the New York Convention framework, which is more predictable and has a narrower set of refusal grounds than the ZPO regime for court judgments. Creditors who have a choice of dispute resolution mechanism at the contract drafting stage should consider arbitration precisely because of this enforcement advantage.

Scenario two: a German subsidiary of a Kazakhstan judgment debtor. A creditor holding a Kazakhstan judgment against a company that has a German subsidiary faces a more complex situation. The German subsidiary is a separate legal entity, and the Kazakhstan judgment against the parent does not automatically bind the subsidiary. The creditor must either enforce against the parent's assets located in Germany directly, or pursue separate proceedings against the subsidiary if there is a legal basis to do so. In practice, the most straightforward route is to identify assets of the judgment debtor itself - bank accounts, real property, receivables - located in Germany and to use the Vollstreckungsklage to obtain an enforceable title against those specific assets.

Interim measures before the main enforcement action. While the Vollstreckungsklage is pending, a creditor may apply for a German court order freezing the debtor's assets (Arrestbefehl) to prevent dissipation. This requires demonstrating both a prima facie claim and urgency. The threshold for obtaining an Arrestbefehl is meaningful, but it is a valuable tool where there is a genuine risk that the debtor will move assets before the enforcement judgment is obtained.

Choosing the right German court. Jurisdiction for the Vollstreckungsklage lies with the Landgericht where the debtor has its domicile or assets. Some Landgerichte have more experience with cross-border enforcement matters than others. Filing in a court with relevant experience can reduce procedural friction and improve the quality of the judicial analysis.

Timing relative to insolvency. If the debtor is insolvent or approaching insolvency, the enforcement strategy must be coordinated with insolvency law considerations. A German insolvency proceeding (Insolvenzverfahren) will stay individual enforcement actions. Creditors should monitor the debtor's financial position and, where appropriate, consider whether filing an insolvency petition in Germany is a more effective route than pursuing the Vollstreckungsklage.

What is the biggest practical risk when trying to enforce a Kazakhstan judgment in Germany?

The reciprocity requirement under Section 328(1)(5) ZPO is the most unpredictable element of the procedure. German courts must be satisfied that Kazakhstan would, in principle, recognise a German judgment in equivalent circumstances. Because there is no bilateral treaty and limited published case law on this specific question, the outcome depends heavily on the quality of the legal analysis presented to the court. A creditor who files without a thorough expert opinion on Kazakhstan's recognition practice risks having the entire claim dismissed on this ground alone, with adverse costs consequences. Preparing a well-documented position on reciprocity before filing is essential, not optional.

How long does the enforcement procedure take, and what does it cost in broad terms?

An uncontested or lightly contested Vollstreckungsklage at first instance typically takes between twelve and eighteen months from filing to judgment. Contested proceedings with a determined defendant and appeals can take three years or more. Costs depend heavily on the claim value and the degree of contestation. For a mid-size commercial judgment, total costs at first instance - covering court fees, legal fees, translations, and expert evidence - can reach the mid-to-high tens of thousands of euros. If the creditor loses, it also bears the defendant's recoverable costs. The cost-benefit analysis must be conducted before filing, not after.

Is there a faster or more reliable alternative to the Vollstreckungsklage for enforcing a Kazakhstan decision in Germany?

If the underlying dispute was resolved by arbitration rather than litigation, enforcement proceeds under the New York Convention, which is faster and more predictable than the ZPO route for court judgments. For future contracts, including a German-seat or ICC arbitration clause is the most reliable way to ensure enforceability in Germany. Where a court judgment already exists, there is no shortcut: the Vollstreckungsklage is the only available route. However, the parties may also consider negotiating a settlement in Germany using the Kazakhstan judgment as leverage, which avoids the cost and uncertainty of the enforcement proceedings entirely.

Enforcing a Kazakhstan court judgment in Germany is a structured but demanding process. It requires a separate German civil action, careful preparation of documents, and a proactive strategy for addressing the reciprocity and ordre public conditions. Creditors who approach the procedure with realistic expectations about timelines and costs, and who invest in thorough preparation, have a viable path to recovery. Those who treat it as a formality risk costly failure.

VLO Law Firm advises international clients on judgment enforcement in Kazakhstan and cross-border enforcement proceedings in Germany. We can assist with assessing the enforceability of your Kazakhstan judgment, preparing the Vollstreckungsklage, obtaining expert evidence on reciprocity, and coordinating with German counsel throughout the proceedings. To request a consultation, contact: info@vlolawfirm.com