UZBEKISTAN Trends and Developments Contributed by: Sherzod Abdulkasimov, Nazokat Kamilova and Navruza Yunusova, PraeLegal Uzbekistan
Enforcement across borders rests on treaty. Uzbeki - stan has been a party to the 1958 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “New York Convention”) since 7 Febru - ary 1996, the Convention having entered into force for Uzbekistan on 7 May 1996. Membership means that awards rendered in other Contracting States are, in principle, enforceable in Uzbekistan, and that Uzbek-seated awards are enforceable abroad – the framework whose domestic operation the next sec - tion examines. Enforcing an Award Today Under the current framework, the route to enforce - ment depends on whether the award is foreign or domestic, and the distinction is consequential. An award made in a foreign seat must first be recognised: the award creditor applies to the competent Uzbek court, which – under the Economic Procedure Code (or Civil Procedure Code) and the New York Conven - tion – reviews only the exhaustive grounds for refusal, such as the invalidity of the arbitration agreement or a serious breach of due process, and does not reopen the merits. Jurisdiction turns on the identity of the par - ties, with the economic courts hearing matters involv - ing companies and other legal entities and the civil courts hearing matters involving individuals. If recog - nition is granted, the court issues a writ of execution, which is then carried out by the Bureau of Compulsory Enforcement under the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Republic of Uzbekistan through measures such as freezing bank accounts and seizing assets. A defining feature of the present system lies not in the governing standard, which is orthodox, but in the way that standard is administered: arbitration-related court business – recognition, enforcement, and applications to set aside – is spread across numerous economic and civil courts whose experience with international arbitration varies. Against that background, the TIFC introduces a specialised, English-language forum, the TICC, which parties can turn to for arbitration-related matters connected to the TIFC. Thus, the Constitu - tional Law makes available an additional, dedicated venue alongside them for parties to choose from. For a foreign investor weighing an Uzbek counterparty, the significance of the reform lies in that added option – a specialised forum that parties can select by agree -
ment – rather than in any wholesale reallocation of arbitration business. The TIFC and the TICC: What Will Change? The TIFC was initially established by the Decree of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan No. UP-48 of 30 March 2026, and its legal framework is now set out in the Constitutional Law, which has recently entered into force. The Constitutional Law creates a spe - cialised zone within Tashkent governed in a defined order of priority: the Constitution of Uzbekistan, the Constitutional Law itself, the regulations of the TIFC’s own bodies. Where a matter is not resolved by those sources, and so far as not inconsistent with them, the common law and the rules of equity of England and Wales apply – together with such England-and- Wales statutes as the TIFC’s Council adopts – while the general law of Uzbekistan applies only where the Constitutional Law or the TIFC’s decisions expressly so provide. Its governance rests on four bodies: a Council chaired ex officio by the President; an Admin - istration serving as the executive body, co-ordinated by a Governor appointed by the President; a Financial Services Authority as regulator; and the TICC as an independent judicial body, separate from the national court system. The significance of the TICC for arbitration lies in the breadth of its jurisdiction. Constituted as a two-tier body – a first-instance court and an appellate court, staffed by judges who may be of any nationality and whose appellate decisions are final and enforceable in Uzbekistan like the judgments of other Uzbek courts – the TICC may recognise and enforce arbitral awards from any international arbitration, irrespective of the seat. It also serves as the competent court for arbitra - tion-related applications where the seat of arbitration is within the TIFC. Set against the current position, the TICC adds a new option rather than rewiring the system. Where recog - nition, enforcement and set-aside applications today fall to a range of general economic and civil courts of uneven specialisation, the Constitutional Law makes available a single, specialised forum applying English legal principles and staffed by internationally expe - rienced judges – a venue that parties can turn to for matters connected to the TIFC or by agreement,
1169 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook