Enforcing a Ukraine Court Judgment in Belgium

Enforcing a Ukraine court judgment in Belgium requires a formal recognition procedure before Belgian courts, since no bilateral treaty between the two countries provides automatic enforcement. The process is governed by Belgian private international law, principally the Belgian Code of Private International Law, and follows a structured exequatur procedure. For creditors holding a Ukrainian judgment, understanding the Belgian legal framework, the grounds on which recognition can be refused, and the practical steps involved is essential before committing resources to enforcement. This guide covers the legal basis, the step-by-step procedure, costs, common defences raised by debtors, and strategic considerations for maximising the prospect of a successful outcome.

Belgium and Ukraine have not concluded a bilateral treaty on the mutual recognition and enforcement of civil judgments. This means that a Ukrainian judgment cannot be enforced in Belgium automatically or under a simplified treaty-based procedure. Instead, the creditor must rely on the general rules of Belgian private international law.

The primary instrument is the Belgian Code of Private International Law (CPIL), enacted in its current form and periodically amended. Articles 22 to 25 of the CPIL set out the conditions under which a foreign judgment may be recognised and declared enforceable by a Belgian court. The CPIL applies to civil and commercial judgments; it does not cover criminal, tax or administrative decisions, though civil damages awarded within criminal proceedings may qualify.

Belgian courts do not conduct a full review of the merits of the foreign judgment. The exequatur procedure is not a retrial. Instead, the Belgian court examines whether the Ukrainian judgment satisfies a defined checklist of conditions. If all conditions are met, the court grants the exequatur order, which gives the judgment the same enforcement force as a Belgian judgment. The creditor can then instruct a Belgian bailiff to execute against the debtor's assets located in Belgium.

A non-obvious requirement is that the creditor must demonstrate the judgment is final and enforceable in Ukraine. A judgment under appeal or subject to a stay of execution in Ukraine will not satisfy this condition. Obtaining a certificate of finality from the Ukrainian court that issued the judgment is therefore a practical first step before initiating Belgian proceedings.

Belgian courts assess a Ukrainian judgment against several cumulative conditions drawn from the CPIL. All must be satisfied; failure on any single point gives the court grounds to refuse recognition.

The first condition is that the Ukrainian court had jurisdiction under rules that are compatible with Belgian jurisdictional principles. Belgian courts will not recognise a judgment rendered by a court that assumed jurisdiction on a basis that Belgian law considers exorbitant. For example, if the Ukrainian court asserted jurisdiction solely because the plaintiff was Ukrainian, Belgian courts may find this incompatible.

The second condition is that the judgment was rendered following a procedure that respected the fundamental rights of the defence. This includes the right to be heard, proper service of process, and the opportunity to present arguments. A common ground for challenge is that the defendant was not properly served under Ukrainian procedural rules, particularly where the defendant was resident in Belgium at the time.

The third condition is that the judgment does not conflict with a prior Belgian judgment or a prior foreign judgment already recognised in Belgium involving the same parties and the same subject matter. Creditors should verify whether any parallel proceedings exist in Belgium before filing.

The fourth condition is that recognition is not manifestly contrary to Belgian public policy (ordre public). This is a narrow but important ground. Belgian courts interpret public policy strictly and will not use it to second-guess the merits of the Ukrainian judgment. However, judgments that violate fundamental procedural guarantees or that award damages of a punitive nature far exceeding compensatory principles may face scrutiny on this ground.

The fifth condition is that the judgment is not the result of fraud. If the creditor manipulated the Ukrainian proceedings to obtain a judgment, Belgian courts may refuse recognition.

In practice, the most frequently litigated conditions are jurisdiction and due process. Creditors should prepare detailed evidence on both points before filing the exequatur application.

The exequatur procedure in Belgium is initiated by filing a petition with the competent Belgian court. The procedure involves several sequential stages, each with its own requirements and timelines.

Identifying the competent court. The application is filed with the Court of First Instance (Tribunal de première instance / Rechtbank van eerste aanleg) in the judicial district where the debtor is domiciled or where the debtor's assets are located. If the debtor has no domicile in Belgium, the court of the district where enforcement is sought has jurisdiction.

Preparing the application file. The creditor must submit a certified copy of the Ukrainian judgment, a certificate confirming the judgment is final and enforceable in Ukraine, and a certified translation into French or Dutch depending on the linguistic region of the court. Translations must be prepared by a sworn translator. The application itself is a written petition setting out the facts, the legal basis under the CPIL, and the relief sought. Supporting documents establishing the Ukrainian court's jurisdiction and the regularity of the proceedings are strongly advisable.

Service and adversarial proceedings. Unlike some jurisdictions where exequatur is initially granted ex parte, Belgian procedure is adversarial from the outset in most cases. The debtor is served with the application and has the right to file a written defence. The court may hold a hearing. This adversarial structure means the creditor must anticipate the defences the debtor is likely to raise and address them proactively in the initial filing.

The court's decision. The court issues a judgment granting or refusing the exequatur. If granted, the order is appended to the Ukrainian judgment and the combined document becomes enforceable in Belgium. If refused, the creditor may appeal to the Court of Appeal within one month of notification of the judgment.

Execution. Once the exequatur is granted, the creditor engages a Belgian bailiff (huissier de justice / gerechtsdeurwaarder) to enforce the judgment. The bailiff can seize bank accounts, movable assets, and initiate proceedings to attach real property. Belgian enforcement law provides a range of execution tools, and the choice of method depends on the nature and location of the debtor's assets.

The total timeline from filing the exequatur application to obtaining the order typically ranges from three to eight months, depending on the complexity of the case, whether the debtor contests the application, and the workload of the court. Contested cases can take considerably longer, particularly if the debtor raises substantive challenges to jurisdiction or due process.

If you are preparing an exequatur application and need assistance structuring the file or coordinating with Belgian counsel, contact info@vlolawfirm.com. We can help structure the setup correctly the first time.

The cost of enforcing a Ukrainian judgment in Belgium involves several distinct categories. Creditors should budget realistically before committing to the process, particularly where the judgment amount is modest.

Court fees and procedural costs. Belgian court fees for exequatur proceedings are relatively modest compared to substantive litigation. The filing fee is calculated on a fixed or proportional basis depending on the value of the claim. These fees are generally recoverable from the debtor if the exequatur is granted, but recovery depends on the debtor's solvency.

Translation costs. Certified translations of the Ukrainian judgment and supporting documents into French or Dutch represent a meaningful cost item. Ukrainian is not a widely translated language in Belgium, and sworn translators with Ukrainian language capacity charge accordingly. For a judgment of moderate length, translation costs can reach several thousand euros.

Legal fees. Engaging a Belgian lawyer to prepare and argue the exequatur application is the largest single cost item. Belgian lawyers charge on an hourly or fixed-fee basis. For an uncontested or straightforward application, professional fees typically start from the low thousands of euros. Contested proceedings, particularly those involving hearings and appeals, can cost considerably more. Creditors should also consider the cost of Ukrainian legal counsel to obtain the necessary certificates and documentation from the Ukrainian court.

Bailiff fees. Once the exequatur is granted, the bailiff's fees for execution are regulated by Belgian law and are generally proportional to the amounts recovered. These fees are typically charged to the debtor.

Hidden costs. A common mistake is underestimating the cost of obtaining documentation from Ukraine. Apostille certification, notarisation, and obtaining a certificate of finality from the Ukrainian court all involve fees and, in current conditions, may require additional time and logistical effort. Creditors should factor in a contingency for document procurement.

The overall cost of the process, from document preparation through to execution, can range from the low thousands to the mid-tens of thousands of euros depending on complexity and contestation. A cost-benefit analysis comparing the judgment amount against the anticipated enforcement costs is a sensible preliminary step.

Debtors in Belgium have a defined set of grounds on which they can resist recognition of a Ukrainian judgment. Understanding these defences allows the creditor to anticipate and address them in the initial filing.

Jurisdictional challenge. The debtor may argue that the Ukrainian court lacked jurisdiction under principles acceptable to Belgian law. To counter this, the creditor should document the basis on which the Ukrainian court assumed jurisdiction - for example, the defendant's domicile in Ukraine at the time, the place of performance of the contract, or the location of the tort. Contractual choice-of-court clauses in favour of Ukrainian courts are particularly strong evidence.

Due process challenge. The debtor may claim that service of process was defective or that they were denied a fair hearing. This is the most common and often the most difficult challenge to counter. Creditors should obtain from the Ukrainian court a certified record of service and a transcript or summary of the proceedings demonstrating that the defendant had the opportunity to participate. Where the defendant was resident in Belgium during the Ukrainian proceedings, the creditor should document how service was effected under the Hague Service Convention or applicable bilateral arrangements.

Public policy challenge. The debtor may invoke Belgian public policy to resist recognition. Belgian courts apply this ground narrowly. A creditor can counter by demonstrating that the Ukrainian judgment is a standard civil or commercial award, that the proceedings were conducted in accordance with basic due process, and that the award is compensatory rather than punitive.

Fraud challenge. If the debtor alleges fraud in the Ukrainian proceedings, they bear the burden of proof. This is a difficult ground to establish and is rarely successful in practice unless there is clear evidence of procedural manipulation.

In practice, debtors who are well-advised will combine jurisdictional and due process arguments. Creditors who have prepared a comprehensive file addressing both grounds from the outset are significantly better positioned to obtain the exequatur without protracted litigation.

Scenario one: commercial contract dispute. A Ukrainian supplier obtains a judgment against a Belgian distributor for unpaid invoices. The contract contained a choice-of-court clause in favour of Ukrainian courts, and the Belgian distributor participated in the Ukrainian proceedings but lost. In this scenario, the exequatur application is relatively straightforward. The jurisdictional basis is clear, the defendant had due process, and there is no obvious public policy issue. The creditor should focus on obtaining a clean set of documents from Ukraine and filing a well-structured petition. The debtor may still contest, but the grounds for refusal are limited.

Scenario two: default judgment against an absent defendant. A Ukrainian court issues a default judgment against a Belgian company that was served by publication in Ukraine but did not appear. The Belgian company now resists the exequatur on due process grounds, arguing it never received effective notice. This scenario is more complex. The creditor must demonstrate that service complied with applicable international rules, including the Hague Service Convention to which both Ukraine and Belgium are parties. If service was not effected through the Convention's channels, the exequatur is at serious risk. In this scenario, the creditor should consider whether it is possible to re-serve the Belgian company and re-open the Ukrainian proceedings to obtain a judgment on the merits rather than a default judgment.

Strategic asset tracing. Before filing the exequatur application, creditors should conduct preliminary asset tracing to confirm that the debtor has assets in Belgium worth pursuing. Belgian enforcement tools are effective, but they can only reach assets that exist and can be located. Bank account seizures, real property attachments, and garnishment of receivables are all available, but each requires identifying the relevant asset. Engaging a specialist to conduct asset tracing before committing to the exequatur process is a sound investment.

Timing and urgency. If there is a risk that the debtor will dissipate assets before the exequatur is granted, Belgian law provides provisional measures including conservatory seizures (saisie conservatoire). A creditor with a Ukrainian judgment can apply for a conservatory seizure in Belgium without waiting for the exequatur, provided they can demonstrate urgency and a prima facie claim. This is a powerful tool that creditors often overlook.

For complex enforcement scenarios involving asset tracing or provisional measures, contact info@vlolawfirm.com. We can assist with documents and filings across jurisdictions.

What happens if the Ukrainian judgment was issued in absentia and the debtor was never properly served?

A default judgment issued without proper service is the single most vulnerable category of Ukrainian judgment in Belgian exequatur proceedings. Belgian courts will scrutinise the service record carefully. If service was not effected through the Hague Service Convention or another recognised channel, the court is likely to refuse recognition on due process grounds. Creditors in this situation should assess whether it is possible to re-initiate proceedings in Ukraine with proper service, or whether an alternative enforcement strategy - such as commencing fresh proceedings in Belgium - is more practical. The strength of the underlying claim on the merits remains relevant to that decision.

How long does the exequatur process take and what does it cost in broad terms?

An uncontested exequatur application in Belgium typically takes between three and five months from filing to the court's decision. Contested cases, particularly those involving hearings and potential appeals, can extend to twelve months or more. In terms of cost, the process involves translation fees, court fees, legal fees in Belgium and potentially in Ukraine, and bailiff fees at the execution stage. For a straightforward case, total professional fees typically start from the low thousands of euros and increase significantly with complexity and contestation. Creditors should conduct a cost-benefit analysis before proceeding, particularly where the judgment amount is below a meaningful threshold relative to anticipated costs.

Is it worth pursuing enforcement in Belgium if the debtor's assets are uncertain?

Enforcement is only commercially viable if the debtor has identifiable assets in Belgium that are sufficient to satisfy the judgment and cover enforcement costs. Before filing the exequatur application, creditors should conduct preliminary asset tracing. Belgian public registers, including the Crossroads Bank for Enterprises and land registers, provide some information. Commercial databases and specialist asset tracing firms can supplement this. If the debtor's assets in Belgium are minimal or uncertain, the creditor should weigh the cost of the exequatur process against the realistic prospect of recovery. In some cases, a negotiated settlement leveraging the threat of enforcement proceedings produces a better outcome than full enforcement.

Enforcing a Ukrainian judgment in Belgium is achievable but requires careful preparation, a thorough understanding of Belgian private international law, and a realistic assessment of costs and timelines. The absence of a bilateral treaty means the creditor must navigate the full exequatur procedure, addressing jurisdictional and due process conditions that Belgian courts will scrutinise carefully.

VLO Law Firm advises international clients on judgment enforcement matters involving Ukraine. We can assist with preparing exequatur applications, coordinating document procurement from Ukrainian courts, advising on provisional measures, and liaising with Belgian enforcement counsel. To request a consultation, contact: info@vlolawfirm.com