Dispute Resolution 2026

Definitive global law guides offering comparative analysis from top-ranked lawyers

CHAMBERS GLOBAL PRACTICE GUIDES

Definitive global law guides offering comparative analysis from top-ranked lawyers

Contributing Editor Gary Born Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr

Global Practice Guides

Dispute Resolution Contributing Editor Gary Born Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr

2026

Chambers Global Practice Guides For more than 20 years, Chambers Global Guides have ranked lawyers and law firms across the world. Chambers now offer clients a new series of Global Practice Guides, which contain practical guidance on doing legal business in key jurisdictions. We use our knowledge of the world’s best lawyers to select leading law firms in each jurisdiction to write the ‘Law & Practice’ sections. In addition, the ‘Trends & Developments’ sections analyse trends and developments in local legal markets. Disclaimer: The information in this guide is provided for general reference only, not as specific legal advice. Views expressed by the authors are not necessarily the views of the law firms in which they practise. For specific legal advice, a lawyer should be consulted. Content Management Director Claire Oxborrow Content Manager Jonathan Mendelowitz Senior Content Reviewers Sally McGonigal, Ethne Withers, Deborah Sinclair, Stephen Dinkeldein, Vivienne Button and Sean Marshall Content Reviewers Lawrence Garrett, Marianne Page, Heather Palomino, Alison Moore, Adrian Ciechacki and Michael Irvine Content Coordination Manager Nancy Tsang Senior Content Coordinators Carla Cagnina and Delicia Tasinda Content Coordinator Joanna Chivers Head of Production Jasper John Production Coordinator Genevieve Sibayan

Published by Chambers and Partners 165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AE Tel +44 20 7606 8844 Fax +44 20 7831 5662 Web www.chambers.com

Contents

INTRODUCTION Contributed by Gary Born and Matteo Angelini, WilmerHale p.5 ARMENIA Law and Practice p.9 Contributed by MB Legal Trends and Developments p.27 Contributed by MB Legal BAHRAIN Law and Practice p.33 Contributed by Al Tamimi & Company Trends and Developments p.51 Contributed by Al Tamimi & Company Contributed by Machado Meyer Trends and Developments p.72 Contributed by Machado Meyer BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS Law and Practice p.79 Contributed by Emery Cooke Trends and Developments p.92 Contributed by Emery Cooke BRAZIL Law and Practice p.57 Contributed by Fangda Partners Trends and Developments p.116 Contributed by Fangda Partners COLOMBIA Trends and Developments p.121 Contributed by Amadeus CHINA Law and Practice p.100 CYPRUS Law and Practice p.126 Contributed by Michael Kyprianou & Co LLC Trends and Developments p.141 Contributed by Michael Kyprianou & Co LLC

ECUADOR Law and Practice p.172 Contributed by Coronel & Pérez Trends and Developments p.186 Contributed by Coronel & Pérez

EGYPT Law and Practice p.193

Contributed by Shalakany Law Office Trends and Developments p.205 Contributed by Shalakany Law Office FINLAND Law and Practice p.211 Contributed by Dottir Attorneys Trends and Developments p.228 Contributed by Dottir Attorneys Contributed by Hengeler Mueller Trends and Developments p.246 Contributed by Hengeler Mueller GRENADA Law and Practice p.252 Contributed by Seon & Associates GERMANY Law and Practice p.233 HONDURAS Trends and Developments p.261 Contributed by Lexincorp HONG KONG SAR, CHINA Trends and Developments p.268 Contributed by Slaughter and May INDIA Law and Practice p.276 Contributed by AZB & Partners Trends and Developments p.290 Contributed by AZB & Partners

IRAQ Law and Practice p.296 Contributed by Basrah Obelisk Law Firm Ltd Trends and Developments p.310 Contributed by Basrah Obelisk Law Firm Ltd

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC Law and Practice p.148 Contributed by Seibel Henr√≠quez Trends and Developments p.166 Contributed by Seibel Henr√≠quez

3 CHAMBERS.COM

Contents

LIECHTENSTEIN Law and Practice p.316 Contributed by paragraph 7 Trends and Developments p.330 Contributed by paragraph 7

UK Law and Practice p.494 Contributed by Helix Law Trends and Developments p.506 Contributed by Temple Legal Protection UNITED ARAB EMRITES Law and Practice p.512 Contributed by Habib Al Mulla & Partners Trends and Developments p.534 Contributed by Habib Al Mulla & Partners USA Law and Practice p.540 Contributed by Dickinson Wright PLLC Trends and Developments p.555 Contributed by Dickinson Wright PLLC

MAURITIUS Law and Practice p.338

Contributed by Dentons Mauritius LLP Trends and Developments p.358 Contributed by Dentons Mauritius LLP

MEXICO Law and Practice p.364 Contributed by Del Castillo & Castro Abogados Trends and Developments p.374 Contributed by Del Castillo & Castro Abogados

NEW ZEALAND Law and Practice p.379

USA – CALIFORNIA Trends and Developments p.561 Contributed by Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

Contributed by Campbell Westaway Trends and Developments p.395 Contributed by Campbell Westaway NIGERIA Law and Practice p.400 Contributed by Tayo Oyetibo LP NORWAY Law and Practice p.422 Contributed by Kvale Advokatfirma DA Trends and Developments p.434 Contributed by Kvale Advokatfirma DA

USA – MISSOURI Trends and Developments p.567 Contributed by CSO Law LLC VENEZEULA Trends and Developments p.573 Contributed by Amadeus

VIETNAM Law and Practice p.579 Contributed by EPLegal

ZAMBIA Law and Practice p.597 Contributed by Mweshi Banda & Associates Legal Practitioners Trends and Developments p.615 Contributed by Mweshi Banda & Associates Legal Practitioners

PHILIPPINES Law and Practice p.440

Contributed by Villaraza & Angangco Trends and Developments p.456 Contributed by Poblador Bautista & Reyes Law Offices

ROMANIA Law and Practice p.462

Contributed by Andronic and Partners Trends and Developments p.474 Contributed by Andronic and Partners

SWEDEN Law and Practice p.479 Contributed by TIME DANOWSKY Advokatbyrå

4 CHAMBERS.COM

INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Gary Born and Matteo Angelini, WilmerHale WilmerHale has a global team of 500 litigators and controversy specialists who handle highly complex and sensitive matters in all aspects of litigation. The practice is geographically and substantively diverse – with 11 offices in the USA, Europe and Asia – and its lawyers appear in many types of proceedings with various pre-trial, trial and appellate objectives. The firm has played an integral role in some of the most significant recent cases in the US Supreme Court and other US courts, the ECJ, the English courts (includ-

ing the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court) and German national courts. Its experience covers a wide range of industry sectors, including fi- nance, software, IT, manufacturing, oil and gas, and aviation. The broad litigation practice is divided into several more specific practice areas: appellate and Supreme Court litigation, business trial group, gov- ernment and regulatory litigation, IP litigation, inter- national arbitration, international litigation, and white- collar defence and investigations.

Contributing Editors

Gary Born is chair of the international arbitration group at WilmerHale, and also advises on the litigation of international disputes in US courts. He has particular experience in jurisdiction, enforcement of

Matteo Angelini is a counsel at WilmerHale. He focuses on international arbitration and English High Court litigation, and has experience of arbitrations under a variety of institutional rules (including

judgments, conflict of laws and international judicial co-operation, and also serves as an expert witness on aspects of US private international law in foreign proceedings. Gary has served as counsel in more than 675 arbitrations, and has sat as arbitrator in more than 250 institutional and ad hoc arbitrations. He is the author of International Commercial Arbitration (3rd ed 2021 Kluwer International), International Arbitration: Law and Practice (3rd ed 2021), International Civil Litigation in U.S. Courts (6th ed 2018) and a number of other works.

the ICC, LCIA, SIAC and UNCITRAL rules) involving both common law and civil law disputes. He has particular experience in oil and gas, technology, M&A and joint venture disputes, and regularly advises government and private sector clients on international law issues. Matteo is qualified as a barrister in England and Wales, and is a graduate of St Catherine’s College, Oxford University.

WilmerHale 49 Park Lane

London W1K 1PS United Kingdom Tel: +44 0 20 7872 1000 Email: gary.born@wilmerhale.com Web: www.wilmerhale.com

5 CHAMBERS.COM

INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Gary Born and Matteo Angelini, WilmerHale

Global Overview – Dispute Resolution in 2026 The global dispute resolution landscape in 2026 is dominated by macroeconomic and geopolitical fac- tors. The IMF projects global growth will slow 3.1% in 2026 as downside risks from global inflationary pressures, higher trader barriers and tariff wars have combined to create an unstable economic environ- ment. Macroeconomic instability has combined with geopolitical events, including, most recently, the out- break of war in the Middle East to intensify concerns about a global supply chain crisis and present serious concerns to businesses across the globe. This elevated economic uncertainty has led to a pro- liferation of disputes across a wide range of sectors. The areas that are seeing the most disputes are the construction, mining, transport and energy sectors where arbitration has historically been the preferred dispute resolution mechanism. Against this backdrop, it is unsurprising that most leading arbitral institutions are on track to report a record – or close-to-record – caseload over 2026. Europe London remains the world’s leading hub for inter- national dispute resolution. It is the world’s leading centre for international dispute resolution by litigation and, equally with Singapore, by arbitration, according to the Queen Mary University of London International Arbitration Survey. Equally, the English Commercial Court remains, even after Brexit, a preferred global forum for the resolution of commercial disputes as litigants value the predictability, clarity and. In Europe, one major change is the facilitation of collective or class actions. Under the Representa- tive Actions Directive, all EU member states are now required to have at least one procedural mechanism in place for consumers to seek collective redress. Recent data shows a continuous and dramatic rise in class actions being filed in Europe in recent years, with 97 class actions filed in 2024 for a value well in excess of EUR380 billion, an 800% increase in value since 2020. The UK has experienced a similar relentless growth in class actions. According to one recent survey, up to the end of 2024, competition class actions involving

over 655 million class members were filed in the UK, with claimed quantum now exceeding GBP155 billion. One of the largest sets of proceedings before the Eng- lish courts is the Pan-Nox Emissions Group Litigation (also known as “Dieselgate”), involving claims against in excess of 2,000 retailers and finance companies as well as against different vehicle manufacturers. In Europe, a number of EU member states continue to seek to attract litigation cases that traditionally go to the English courts. France and the Netherlands have created their own specialist commercial courts where judges have experience in private international law to cater to international disputes and proceedings can be conducted in English. Germany has also estab- lished English-speaking commercial courts, and Swit- zerland is taking similar steps. Starting from 1 January 2025, cantons in Switzerland have been permitted to establish international commercial courts where pro- ceedings can be conducted in English. To date, however, these continental courts have seen modest activity, while London continues to attract record-breaking volumes of litigants from across the globe. Middle East and Asia The establishment of international-facing courts in Europe follows an earlier trend in the Middle East and Asia. In the UAE in particular, the Courts of the financial free zones of the Dubai International Financial Centre and Abu Dhabi Global Market and the Qatar International Court are starting to rival London as the commercial court of choice for many international litigants. Else- where in Asia, the Singapore International Commercial Court, Bahrain International Commercial Court, the Astana International Financial Centre Court and the China International Commercial Court all specialise in the resolution of cross-border commercial disputes and, for the most part, use English as the language of proceedings. Cases in these courts are often decid- ed by senior judges and lawyers drawn from multiple jurisdictions (except in the China International Com- mercial Court, where the judges are exclusively Chi- nese).

6 CHAMBERS.COM

INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Gary Born and Matteo Angelini, WilmerHale

The establishment of international courts in the Middle East and Asia certainly reflects the eastward shift in economic growth and opportunity. However, all these courts are ultimately modelled on the Commercial Court of England and Wales, which remains a highly attractive jurisdiction for international dispute resolu- tion. The outbreak of war in the Middle East has created uncertainty and disruption for businesses in the Mid- dle East and triggered an increase in cases invoking, in particular, force majeure and frustration of contracts in the Dubai International Financial Centre and Abu Dhabi Global Market Courts. The long-term impact of war in the Middle East on the popularity of the Middle East as a centre for dispute resolution remains to be seen. The USA In the USA, the Trump administration has implement- ed a series of unilateralist and protectionist trade poli- cies emphasising an “America First” agenda. These policies were dramatically announced on a so-called Liberation Day. As of November 2025, Census Bureau trade data shows that just under 50% of all goods that enter the USA are now subject to tariffs. The legality of many of Trump’s new tariffs is being challenged in the US Supreme Court, creating further uncertainty as to future trade conditions. More broadly, the USA has become increasingly hos- tile towards international trade treaties that commit the USA to resolving disputes by arbitration or other means of international dispute resolution. The USA has withdrawn from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and has ruled out joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partner- ship (CPTPP). It has also renegotiated trade agree- ments with Mexico and Canada (NAFTA) and South Korea (KORUS). State courts in jurisdictions such as New York and California nevertheless remain attractive choices when international litigants enter into jurisdiction agreements. Where no jurisdiction agreement exists, the US Supreme Court has scaled back US courts’ power to assume jurisdiction over foreign companies in disputes that have arisen outside the USA ( Good-

year Dunlop Tires Operations SA v Brown , Daimler AG v Bauman, BNSF Railway Co v Tyrrell and Bristol- Myers Squibb v Superior Court of California ). This change is welcomed by foreign litigants who are anx- ious about the US courts exercising jurisdiction over disputes that have no connection to the USA. In 2025, the US Supreme Court continued its long tradition of supporting international arbitration. In CC/ Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v Antrix Corp. Ltd , the US Supreme Court issued a significant decision with respect to the federal court’s jurisdiction over the enforcement of foreign arbitration awards against a sovereign under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The Supreme Court held that, under the FSIA, personal jurisdiction exists over a sovereign entity when “an immunity exception applies and service is proper”. In reaching this conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the FSIA does not require a showing of “minimum contacts” with the jurisdiction in which enforcement is being sought to establish personal jurisdiction. The decision reflects the US courts’ long- standing pro-arbitration stance and a reluctance to impose restrictions on enforcement actions. In Yegiazaryan v Smagin , the Supreme Court ruled that RICO (the US racketeering law) is available as a mech- anism to enforce foreign arbitral awards in the USA. This adds a potentially powerful tool for the enforce- ment of arbitral awards in the United States: it gives judgment creditors another avenue to enforce against third parties involved in racketeering, and leaves open the possibility of obtaining treble damages and recov- ering legal costs. International arbitration Despite attempts by newly formed courts to attract international business, arbitration remains the pre- ferred form of dispute resolution for businesses operating across borders. In the recent Queen Mary University of London International Arbitration Survey, 90% of respondents chose international arbitration – on its own or with other forms of ADR – as their preferred means of dispute resolution in international contracts. The cornerstone of international arbitration’s success is the New York Convention, ratified by 172 states,

7 CHAMBERS.COM

INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Gary Born and Matteo Angelini, WilmerHale

Looking ahead to new challenges Two key new global challenges that pose significant risks in the global dispute resolution sphere are the regulation of crypto-assets and environmental regula- tion. These are politically polarising issues. Along with a rapidly evolving regulatory landscape, an increas- ing number of disputes relating to crypto-assets and blockchain technologies are giving rise to complex legal challenges posed by the novel nature of the assets themselves. Climate change-related litigation also poses novel legal issues, including concerning questions of justiciability and the role of human rights law and remedies in climate change litigation. A con- tinued, exponential rise in litigation and ADR in both these areas is expected. Cybersecurity and data disputes also continue to increase, as cyber-attacks pose an increasing threat to businesses across the globe that hold sensitive commercial information. The shift to digital work- ing and rapid advances in the use of artificial intel- ligence have further increased this threat. According to a recent report published by QBE, the number of cyber-attacks taking place each year has more than doubled since 2020. This has generated a wave of cybersecurity-related litigation, which is expected to continue into 2027.

which celebrates its 68th anniversary in 2026. The Convention protects the enforcement of arbitration agreements and awards, ensuring – with rare excep- tions – that arbitral awards can be enforced against award debtors. In terms of both its global reach and practical effectiveness, the New York Convention remains unparalleled among other forms of interna- tional dispute resolution. Use of artificial intelligence Investment in technology and AI continues to boom as companies have invested heavily, especially in the use of generative AI. This is having obvious and profound effects on the litigation landscape. For legal practition- ers navigating complex document-heavy disclosure processes, AI and, in particular, GenAI, offers a poten- tially transformative and cost-effective solution. There is now a growing consensus among legal practitioners that they are likely to use AI and Gen AI for other uses, including assisting with drafting and predictive case analytics. The increased use of AI in litigation is, in turn, gener- ating its own litigation. In a recent case in the English High Court, Al-Haroun v. Qatar National Bank [2025] EWHC 1383, the Court found that a witness statement had been submitted that had been prepared using Gen-AI and cited non-existent case law and authori- ties. The Court gave a clear message: AI-generated content cannot be accepted at face value and that lawyers using an AI assistant for research should inde- pendently verify AI’s findings. The US District Court for the Southern District of New York in Mata v Avianca , Inc 678 F.Supp.3d 443, gave a similar message where it emerged that counsel had used Gen-AI to research and draft a brief.

8 CHAMBERS.COM

ARMENIA

Russia

Georgia

Armenia

Yerevan

Azerbaijan

Law and Practice Contributed by: Mesrop Manukyan, Maria Petrosyan, Grigor Grigoryan and Anahit Sargsyan MB Legal

Turkey

Iran

Contents 1. Dispute Resolution Methods p.11 1.1 Main Dispute Resolution Methods p.11 1.2 Choice of Dispute Resolution Method p.11 1.3 Key Dispute Resolution Trends p.12 2. Litigation p.12 2.1 Limitation Periods p.12 2.2 Court Structure p.12 2.3 Pre-Action Conduct p.13 2.4 Stages of Court Proceedings p.13

6. Interim Remedies p.20 6.1 Availability of Interim Relief p.20 6.2 Interim Relief to Support Arbitration and ADR p.20 6.3 Timing of Applications for Interim Relief p.21 6.4 Security for Costs p.21 6.5 Interim Injunctions p.21 6.6 Summary Judgment p.21 7. Mass Claims and Class Actions p.21 7.1 Procedural Mechanisms p.21 7.2 Standing Requirements p.22 7.3 Relief p.22 7.4 Class Actions, Mass Claims and Arbitration p.22 7.5 Trends p.22

2.5 Confidentiality p.13 2.6 Interim Relief p.14

2.7 Final Relief p.14 2.8 Damages p.14 3. Arbitration p.15 3.1 Prevalence p.15 3.2 Restrictions on Use of Arbitration p.15 3.3 Advantages of Arbitration p.15 3.4 Disadvantages of Arbitration p.15 3.5 Arbitral Institutions p.16 3.6 Length of Proceedings p.16 3.7 Regulation of Arbitration p.16 3.8 Court Powers p.16 3.9 Court Intervention p.17 3.10 Relief p.17 4. Other ADR Methods p.17 4.1 ADR Procedures p.17 4.2 Requirements to Engage in ADR p.17 4.3 Impact of ADR p.17 4.4 Timing of ADR p.18 4.5 Confidentiality p.18 4.6 Costs p.18 4.7 Courts and ADR p.18 5. Costs, Fees and Funding p.19 5.1 Legal Fees p.19 5.2 Third-Party Funding p.19 5.3 Contingency Fee Arrangement p.19 5.4 Insurance p.19 5.5 Costs p.20 5.6 Assessment of Costs p.20

8. Evidence p.22 8.1 Disclosure p.22 8.2 Privilege p.23 8.3 Confidentiality p.23 8.4 Witness Evidence p.23 8.5 Expert Evidence p.23 9. Enforcement p.24

9.1 Enforcement of Judgments p.24 9.2 Enforcement of Arbitral Awards p.24 9.3 Length of Time p.24 9.4 Grounds for Resisting Enforcement p.25 10. Dispute Resolution and AI p.25 10.1 Regulation p.25

10.2 Impact p.25 10.3 Future p.26

9 CHAMBERS.COM

ARMENIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Mesrop Manukyan, Maria Petrosyan, Grigor Grigoryan and Anahit Sargsyan, MB Legal

MB Legal is a Yerevan-based adviser for complex cross-border matters, particularly within the financial services, technology, and investment management sectors. With over 70% of instructions involving for- eign counterparties from the APAC, EMEA and Amer- icas regions, it maintains a high international ratio among domestic practices. The firm’s team provides specialised expertise in commercial dispute resolu- tion, capital markets and financial regulation. Recent work includes advising on 15% of all new bank and investment company licences in 2024–2025, lead-

ing the only two IPOs on the Armenian Securities Exchange in 2024, and managing USD145 million in debt restructurings for international financial institu- tions. The firm also recently advised on multi-jurisdic- tional M&A and reorganisations totalling USD250 mil- lion. MB Legal has advised on over 30% of all private fund registrations in the jurisdiction, and is trusted by leading Armenian banks and international investment firms facing complex regulatory or corporate litiga- tion challenges across its network.

Authors

Mesrop Manukyan is a founding partner at MB Legal with over seven years of experience in transactional and technology law. His career

Grigor Grigoryan is a partner at MB Legal with over 12 years of professional experience. He advises clients in the fields of commercial and loan contracts, and commercial, corporate and labour disputes. He

includes serving as General Counsel for a Shanghai-based technology firm and leading legal functions at the Foundation for Armenian Science and Technology. Mesrop specialises in arbitration, mergers and acquisitions, intellectual property and telecommunications, advising international clients on corporate restructuring and emerging tech regulations. He holds an MBA from London Business School and an LLM from the University of Cambridge.

has extensive experience in civil and administrative litigation, and representation of interests in public procurement processes. He advised Citibank on a bond issue project by a major mining company, and has been involved in BSTDB loan restructuring projects. Grigor holds a PhD and an LLM degree from Russian-Armenian University. He is a licensed advocate as well as an arbitrator at RA CCI and AMCA.

Maria Petrosyan is a senior legal counsel at MB Legal with over seven years of experience in corporate law, dispute resolution and legislative reforms. She specialises in the development of arbitration and

Anahit Sargsyan is a junior partner at MB Legal, having joined the firm as a lawyer in 2021 before progressing to her current seniority. She specialises in corporate and business law, with expertise in international commercial

mediation frameworks, and previously served as the Armenian national correspondent for the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ). Maria is a member of the Chamber of Advocates of the Republic of Armenia and a licensed mediator. Her expertise includes complex transactional analysis and international commercial arbitration, where she frequently serves as a coach and arbitrator for global platforms.

arbitration and mediation, particularly within the investment fund sector. Her technical skills were developed through participation in international moot-court competitions and specialised professional courses organised by IRZ and GIZ. Anahit is a member of the Chamber of Advocates of the Republic of Armenia, and holds an LLM from the American University of Armenia.

10 CHAMBERS.COM

ARMENIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Mesrop Manukyan, Maria Petrosyan, Grigor Grigoryan and Anahit Sargsyan, MB Legal

MB Legal 37 Hanrapetutyan Street, 4th Floor Yerevan 0010 Armenia Tel: +374 41 241244 Email: info@mblegal.am Web: mblegal.am

1. Dispute Resolution Methods 1.1 Main Dispute Resolution Methods The primary method for resolving commercial dis- putes in Armenia remains civil litigation within the state judicial system. The Armenian judicial hierarchy consists of courts of general jurisdiction and special- ised courts, such as the Bankruptcy Court and the Anti-Corruption Court, which handle specific catego- ries of commercial and state-related matters. These proceedings are governed by the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Armenia (the main legal act regulating civil procedural relations) as well as certain special laws – eg, the Law on Bankruptcy. Commercial arbitration is a highly utilised alternative for domestic and international commercial disputes. It provides a private, expert-led mechanism for par- ties who wish to avoid the public nature of the state courts, and allows one to avoid the lengthy proceed- ings usually required in state courts. The legal frame- work for arbitration is modernised and based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commer- cial Arbitration, allowing parties to resolve conflicts through ad hoc arrangements or permanent arbitral institutions. Mediation in Armenia has undergone major reforms since 2022, transforming it into one of the core mechanisms of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), designed to facilitate amicable settlements through the assistance of a neutral third party. The Law on Mediation regulates the activities of licensed media- tors and provides a structured environment for nego- tiation. Mediation can be initiated voluntarily by the parties or, in certain circumstances, mandated by the

court or specific legislation. Currently, mediation in Armenia is mandatory in some family law disputes, aimed at reducing court backlog and encouraging col- laborative resolution. 1.2 Choice of Dispute Resolution Method Litigation remains the default and most popular mech- anism for dispute resolution due to the established nature of the court system and the direct enforceability of judicial acts. Most standard commercial disputes, including contract breaches and property issues, are filed in the courts of general jurisdiction. Specialised courts are popular for their technical expertise – for instance, the Bankruptcy Court has exclusive jurisdic- tion over insolvency proceedings, ensuring a focused approach to complex debt restructuring. In some instances, parties turn to the Bankruptcy Court to recover straightforward monetary debts as the legal security measures available within bankruptcy pro- ceedings tend to be more effective than those offered by the courts of general jurisdiction. Arbitration is chosen in both local and international commercial contracts and large-scale investment pro- jects where parties prefer a neutral venue and the abil- ity to select arbitrators with specific industry knowl- edge. The popularity of arbitration is supported by the judiciary’s “pro-arbitration” stance, where courts generally respect the finality of arbitral awards. Mediation is gaining traction in family and labour law and is increasingly used for small-to-medium com- mercial claims. In some instances, such as disputes involving financial organisations, parties may be required to approach the Financial System Mediator

11 CHAMBERS.COM

ARMENIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Mesrop Manukyan, Maria Petrosyan, Grigor Grigoryan and Anahit Sargsyan, MB Legal

before initiating litigation. This multi-tiered approach encourages settlement at the earliest possible stage. 1.3 Key Dispute Resolution Trends A fundamental trend in Armenia is the digitalisation of the judiciary through the implementation of the Elec- tronic System for Dispute Resolution. This system has transformed legal practice by allowing electronic filing of lawsuits, digital submission of evidence, and auto- mated judicial notifications. For many legal entities and advocates, the use of this system is now manda- tory, aiming to reduce delays and increase the trans- parency of the litigation process. There is also a significant trend towards the strength- ening of specialised courts. The expansion of the Anti- Corruption Court to handle civil cases involving the recovery of illicit assets demonstrates a move towards high-stakes, specialised adjudication. Similarly, the continuous modernisation of the Bankruptcy Court aims to improve the efficiency of insolvency proceed- ings and business rehabilitation. Furthermore, the mainstreaming of ADR through man- datory mediation requirements in specific categories of cases is a key policy development. The State is actively promoting mediation to alleviate the heavy workload of the courts and to foster a culture of col- laborative conflict resolution. This is coupled with the emergence of online mediation and digital ADR plat- forms to improve accessibility. The general limitation period for bringing a civil claim in Armenia is three years, during which an individual may seek judicial protection for a violated right. This period applies to the majority of commercial claims unless a specific law provides for a different time- frame. The limitation period begins to run from the day the person knew or should have known about the violation of their right. Shorter limitation periods apply to specific types of disputes. For example, claims related to contracts of carriage (freight) are subject to a one-year limitation 2. Litigation 2.1 Limitation Periods

period. In the context of employment law, specific deadlines are set for challenging individual legal acts or disciplinary actions. Additionally, claims for the recovery of damages for harm caused to life or health have no limitation period, although recovery for past periods is limited to three years prior to the filing of the lawsuit. In certain cases – particularly those involving the application of the legal consequences of invalidity to voidable transactions – a prolonged limitation period of ten years is established. The running of the limita- tion period can be suspended under certain circum- stances, such as the occurrence of an “uncontrollable force” or if a party initiates a formal mediation process. If a party misses a limitation period for a valid reason, the court may, upon a reasoned motion, restore the deadline to ensure access to justice. However, the expiry of the limitation period is a mandatory ground for the court to deny the claim if the opposing party invokes it as a defence before the trial concludes. 2.2 Court Structure Armenia possesses a three-tiered judicial system composed of First Instance Courts, Courts of Appeal, and the Court of Cassation. The First Instance Courts are the primary level of adju- dication and include courts of general jurisdiction as well as specialised courts such as the Bankruptcy Court and the Anti-Corruption Court. These courts handle the factual investigation and initial legal deter- mination of disputes. Appellate review is conducted by the Civil Court of Appeal or the Anti-Corruption Court of Appeal, depending on the subject matter. The Court of Appeal reviews cases based on the existing record and can reverse or modify lower court decisions if there was a violation of substantive or procedural law. It generally does not hear new evidence unless a party proves that it was impossible to present it in the first instance. The final level of review is the Court of Cassation, which consists of several specialised chambers, including a Civil Chamber and an Anti-Corruption Chamber. The Court of Cassation does not re-examine facts but focuses on the uniform application of the law and the

12 CHAMBERS.COM

ARMENIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Mesrop Manukyan, Maria Petrosyan, Grigor Grigoryan and Anahit Sargsyan, MB Legal

correction of fundamental violations of human rights. Decisions of the Court of Cassation serve as impor- tant precedents for the entire judicial system. Finally, the Constitutional Court occupies a unique place in Armenia’s judicial system, administering constitutional justice by ensuring the supremacy of the Constitution and reviewing the constitutionality of Armenian law does not impose a general, manda- tory pre-action protocol for all types of litigation, but it recognises the validity of contractual out-of-court settlement procedures. If a contract or a specific law requires parties to attempt a settlement (such as a formal claim or negotiation) before filing a lawsuit, the court will only accept the case after these steps have been completed. Failure to comply with these require- ments typically results in the court returning the law- suit to the plaintiff. In the financial sector, specific pre-action require- ments exist for disputes between consumers and financial institutions. Consumers may be required to submit their grievance to the Financial System Media- tor, whose decisions can be binding or serve as a prerequisite for litigation. This is intended to resolve small-scale financial disputes efficiently without bur- dening the courts. laws and other state acts. 2.3 Pre-Action Conduct For labour disputes, although there is no universal pre-action requirement, the Labour Code encourages internal grievance mechanisms. In administrative and tax matters, a party may choose to pursue an admin- istrative appeal before turning to the courts, though this is often optional. In all cases, the court must verify whether any mandatory pre-action steps were neglected during the initial screening of the lawsuit. 2.4 Stages of Court Proceedings Civil litigation involves several distinct stages, begin- ning with the filing of the lawsuit. The court must decide whether to accept, return or reject the law- suit within three to seven days of its receipt. Once accepted, the preliminary stage begins, during which the court clarifies the scope of the claims, identifies

the necessary evidence, and determines the burden of proof for each party. Following the preliminary phase, the court schedules the trial (investigation of evidence). During the trial, the court hears oral arguments, examines witnesses, reviews documents and evaluates expert opinions. All these actions are carried out within the scope of the claims defined at the preliminary stage. The court is committed to the principles of reasonable time and efficiency, though the duration of a trial can vary sig- nificantly based on the complexity of the case. The final stage is the delivery of the verdict. The court must issue a reasoned judgment that addresses all factual and legal issues raised during the proceed- ings. A standard commercial case in the first instance typically lasts between six and 12 months, while the appeals process can add several more months to the final resolution. 2.5 Confidentiality The general rule in Armenia is that court proceedings are public, and any person has the right to attend hearings. Transparency is a constitutional principle aimed at ensuring judicial accountability and public trust. Furthermore, final judicial acts and some interim decisions are published on the official judicial portal (datalex.am), though certain personal or sensitive data may be redacted to protect privacy. Confidentiality can be maintained through closed ses- sions if requested by a party or initiated by the court. Grounds for a closed hearing include the protection of private life, trade secrets, state security or the inter- ests of minors. If a session is closed, only the parties, their representatives and necessary court personnel may attend, and all participants are warned against disclosing the information discussed. Even in cases where the trial is closed, the final ver- dict must be announced publicly, although the court may choose to publish only the “operative part” (the final conclusion) to protect the underlying confiden- tial information. Parties seeking confidentiality must provide a specific justification, as the court must bal- ance the need for privacy against the public’s right to information.

13 CHAMBERS.COM

ARMENIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Mesrop Manukyan, Maria Petrosyan, Grigor Grigoryan and Anahit Sargsyan, MB Legal

2.6 Interim Relief Litigants in Armenia can seek interim relief (security of the claim) to ensure that a future judgment remains enforceable. Common types of interim relief include: • freezing the defendant’s property or funds within the value of the claim price; • prohibiting the defendant or third parties from performing specific actions related to the subject of the dispute; • obliging the defendant or other persons to perform specific acts to prevent harm or preserve property; • suspending the sale or realisation of property in cases where a lawsuit has been filed to remove an attachment from that property; and • placing an attachment on property that belongs to the plaintiff but is currently in the possession of the defendant. These measures are available if the applicant can demonstrate that failure to apply them would make the enforcement of a judgment impossible or signifi- cantly more difficult. Applications for interim relief are typically reviewed without a hearing and often within one to three days of being filed. This speed is necessary to prevent the respondent from dissipating assets before the relief can take effect. The court has the power to grant relief ex parte, meaning the respondent is only notified after the order has been issued and sent for enforcement. To protect the respondent against potential losses, the court may require the applicant to provide coun- tersecurity. This involves depositing funds or providing a bank guarantee to compensate the respondent if the claim is ultimately found to be meritless and the interim relief caused damage. If the interim relief is granted before the lawsuit is officially filed (pre-action relief), the plaintiff must file the main claim within a short period (typically two weeks), or the relief will be automatically lifted. 2.7 Final Relief The key types of final relief available in commercial litigation include monetary damages, specific perfor- mance and declaratory judgments. Monetary relief is the most frequent, and covers the payment of debts,

compensation for losses and the collection of pen- alties. Courts also have the power to order a party to perform a specific obligation, such as delivering goods or transferring ownership of a property. Declaratory relief involves the court formally recognis- ing the existence or non-existence of a specific legal right or relationship. This is often used to clarify own- ership status or the validity of a contract. Additionally, courts can invalidate transactions or legal acts issued by state or local government bodies that are found to be unlawful. A final judgment becomes binding and enforceable once it enters into legal force, typically after the period for appeal has expired. If the judgment involves the payment of money or the transfer of property, the court issues a writ of execution, which is handled by the Compulsory Enforcement Service. The prevailing party is also entitled to the reimbursement of their liti- gation costs as part of the final relief. 2.8 Damages Damages are assessed based on the principle of full compensation, which aims to restore the injured party to the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred. Under the Civil Code, dam- ages consist of two components: actual damage (the expenses incurred and the loss or damage to prop- erty) and lost profits (the income the party would have received under normal circumstances). The claimant bears the burden of proof to establish the extent of the damage and the direct causal link between the defendant’s breach and the loss. Arme- nian courts do not generally award punitive or exem- plary damages; the focus remains strictly on compen- satory outcomes. However, parties can agree in their contract on liquidated damages (penalties) for specific breaches, which the court will enforce unless they are found to be clearly disproportionate to the actual loss or if they exceed the maximum amount established by law. In cases of non-pecuniary (moral) damage, such as injury to honour, dignity or business reputation, the court may award monetary compensation. The amount of such compensation is determined by the

14 CHAMBERS.COM

ARMENIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Mesrop Manukyan, Maria Petrosyan, Grigor Grigoryan and Anahit Sargsyan, MB Legal

court based on factors such as the nature of the vio- lation, the extent of the harm and the defendant’s degree of fault. For specific commercial violations, such as the unauthorised use of a trade mark or firm name, the law provides for specialised methods of calculating damages.

matters or violates Armenian public policy can be set aside by the state courts. 3.3 Advantages of Arbitration The key advantages of arbitration in Armenia include confidentiality, speed and the ability to choose expert arbitrators. Unlike the public state courts, arbitration proceedings are private, and the resulting awards are not published without the parties’ consent, which is critical for protecting sensitive commercial informa- tion. The process is also more flexible, allowing parties to agree on the rules of procedure, the language of the proceedings, and the location of hearings. A significant procedural advantage is the direct enforcement of small claims. Under the Law on Com- mercial Arbitration, a permanent arbitral institution can send an award directly to the Compulsory Enforce- ment Service via an electronic message, bypassing the need for a court-issued writ of execution. This streamlined process is available if the seat of arbitra- tion is Armenia, the parties are domestic citizens or legal entities, and the amount to be recovered does not exceed AMD5 million. Arbitration also provides for the finality of decisions, as the grounds for setting aside an arbitral award are extremely narrow and limited to procedural errors. This prevents the multi-year, multi-tiered appeals process common in litigation. Additionally, the ability to select arbitrators with specific industry knowledge (eg, in construction or IT) ensures a more technically sound resolution of complex disputes compared to general jurisdiction judges. However, parties often run into initial friction when a respondent challenges the validity of the arbitration agreement in state court, which can lead to a pre- liminary delay of several months before the arbitral tribunal can effectively proceed. 3.4 Disadvantages of Arbitration The primary disadvantages of arbitration are the higher initial costs compared to litigation. Parties are responsible for paying the fees of the arbitrators and the administrative costs of the arbitral institution, whereas state court fees (state duties) are often lower for large claims. Furthermore, because there is no full

3. Arbitration 3.1 Prevalence

Arbitration is a highly prevalent and respected method of dispute resolution in Armenia, particularly for inter- national commercial transactions. It is widely used in sectors such as banking, energy, construction and tel- ecommunications, where parties value the technical expertise of the arbitrators. Most modern commer- cial contracts between Armenian entities and foreign investors include a standard arbitration clause. The use of arbitration is supported by the Law on Commercial Arbitration, which provides a modern framework that aligns Armenian practice with global standards. Domestic arbitration is also growing, as more local businesses recognise the benefits of a faster and more private alternative to the state court system. The Armenian judiciary consistently enforces the principle that valid arbitration agreements must be respected, directing parties away from litigation when a valid clause exists. 3.2 Restrictions on Use of Arbitration Armenian law imposes certain restrictions on which disputes can be referred to arbitration. Generally, disputes that involve public order, administrative law, or those reserved for the exclusive jurisdiction of the state courts cannot be arbitrated. Examples of non- arbitrable matters include certain family law issues (eg, child custody), inheritance disputes, and specific types of property rights that require state registration. Furthermore, an arbitration agreement involving a consumer is subject to strict validity requirements. Such an agreement is only valid and binding if it was signed after the dispute arose, ensuring that consum- ers are not forced into arbitration through standard- form contracts signed at the beginning of a transac- tion. Any arbitral award that deals with non-arbitrable

15 CHAMBERS.COM

ARMENIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Mesrop Manukyan, Maria Petrosyan, Grigor Grigoryan and Anahit Sargsyan, MB Legal

merits review on appeal, parties must accept the risk of an unfavourable decision even if they believe that the arbitrator made an error in interpreting the law or facts. Another potential disadvantage is that arbitral tribu- nals lack the state’s coercive power to directly enforce their own orders. For example, if a party refuses to comply with an arbitrator’s order to produce evidence or maintain a certain status quo, the other party may still need to approach a state court for assistance for awards higher than AMD5 million. This can lead to additional time and legal costs if one party is deter- mined to be uncooperative. While the law provides for expedited judicial support for interim measures, in practice obtaining a state court order to freeze assets in support of an ongo- ing arbitration can still take two to four weeks due to court backlogs. 3.5 Arbitral Institutions The most popular arbitral institutions in the country are the Arbitration and Mediation Center of Armenia and the Arbitration Institution at the Chamber of Com- merce and Industry of the Republic of Armenia. These institutions provide a structured set of rules, a list of qualified arbitrators, and administrative support for both domestic and international cases. Many Arme- nian contracts also opt for prestigious international institutions, such as the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) or the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), particularly in large-scale foreign investments. Parties are also free to conduct ad hoc arbitration, where they create their own procedural rules for a spe- cific case rather than using an institution. However, institutional arbitration is generally preferred for its predictability and the existence of “emergency arbi- trator” provisions that can provide quick relief even

and the procedural schedule agreed upon by the par- ties and the tribunal. Institutional rules often set clear deadlines for the submission of pleadings and the issuance of the final award. The finality of the arbitral award is a major factor in reducing the overall time for dispute resolution. Since an award cannot be appealed on its merits, the time that would otherwise be spent in the Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation is eliminated. Once the award is issued, the process for recognition and enforcement in the state courts is also designed to be expedited. 3.7 Regulation of Arbitration Arbitration in Armenia is regulated by the Law on Com- mercial Arbitration, which is closely modelled after the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. This law provides a comprehensive and modern legal framework for both domestic and inter- national arbitrations seated in Armenia. It covers eve- rything from the formation of the arbitration agreement to the conduct of proceedings and the enforcement of awards. In addition to national law, Armenia is a signatory to the 1958 Convention on the Recognition and Enforce- ment of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “New York Con- vention”). This treaty ensures that arbitral awards ren- dered in Armenia are enforceable in over 160 other countries, and conversely that foreign awards are rec- ognised and enforced by Armenian courts. The Civil Procedure Code also contains specific chapters that co-ordinate the relationship between the state courts State courts in Armenia have significant powers to support and facilitate the arbitration process. Key powers include the appointment of arbitrators when the parties cannot agree on a candidate or when the agreed-upon mechanism fails. Courts also have the authority to decide on challenges to an arbitrator’s independence or impartiality if the internal arbitration process does not resolve the issue. and arbitral tribunals. 3.8 Court Powers Courts play a vital role in the taking of evidence. If a party or a third-party witness refuses to co-operate

before a full tribunal is formed. 3.6 Length of Proceedings

Arbitral proceedings are generally significantly faster than litigation through three court tiers, typically last- ing between six and 12 months. The specific timeline is largely determined by the complexity of the case

16 CHAMBERS.COM

Page i Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 73 Page 74 Page 75 Page 76 Page 77 Page 78 Page 79 Page 80 Page 81 Page 82 Page 83 Page 84 Page 85 Page 86 Page 87 Page 88 Page 89 Page 90 Page 91 Page 92 Page 93 Page 94 Page 95 Page 96 Page 97 Page 98 Page 99 Page 100 Page 101 Page 102 Page 103 Page 104 Page 105 Page 106 Page 107 Page 108 Page 109 Page 110 Page 111 Page 112 Page 113 Page 114 Page 115 Page 116 Page 117 Page 118 Page 119 Page 120 Page 121 Page 122 Page 123 Page 124 Page 125 Page 126 Page 127 Page 128 Page 129 Page 130 Page 131 Page 132 Page 133 Page 134 Page 135 Page 136 Page 137 Page 138 Page 139 Page 140 Page 141 Page 142 Page 143 Page 144 Page 145 Page 146 Page 147 Page 148 Page 149 Page 150 Page 151 Page 152 Page 153 Page 154 Page 155 Page 156 Page 157 Page 158 Page 159 Page 160 Page 161 Page 162 Page 163 Page 164 Page 165 Page 166 Page 167 Page 168 Page 169 Page 170 Page 171 Page 172 Page 173 Page 174 Page 175 Page 176 Page 177 Page 178 Page 179 Page 180 Page 181 Page 182 Page 183 Page 184 Page 185 Page 186 Page 187 Page 188 Page 189 Page 190 Page 191 Page 192 Page 193 Page 194 Page 195 Page 196 Page 197 Page 198 Page 199