UZBEKISTAN Trends and Developments Contributed by: Sherzod Abdulkasimov, Nazokat Kamilova and Navruza Yunusova, PraeLegal Uzbekistan
trator in a proceeding may no longer act as a party’s representative in that same proceeding. On the protection of public funds, the reform is emphatic. State bodies, state institutions, enterprises with state participation, and bodies of citizens’ self- government may no longer establish domestic arbitra - tion courts, be parties to an arbitration agreement, or voluntarily comply with a domestic arbitral award; and disputes over land, over the establishment of owner - ship of buildings and structures, and over the recovery of money from the budget are excluded from arbitra - tion altogether. Breaches carry administrative liability under a new provision of the Code on Administrative Liability, with fines on officials of five to ten base cal - culation units, rising to ten to 15 for a repeat offence within a year. Of greater substantive significance, the new Law “On Limited Liability Companies” (ZRU-1137, 21 April 2026, in force from 22 July 2026) modernises Uzbek company law with respect to corporate governance, affiliated-party transactions, majority/minority-partic - ipant protection and the fiduciary duties of manage - ment. Two points of context matter for international users. First, these restrictions apply to the domestic regime, not to international commercial arbitration under the ICA Law, so cross-border arbitration and TIAC’s case - load are unaffected. Second, the direction of travel is, on its face, the opposite of the liberalisation seen on the international side – a reminder that Uzbekistan is pursuing a deliberately two-track policy, opening up and internationalising cross-border arbitration while disciplining, and narrowing, the purely domestic vari - ety. That divergence also adds another incentive to the proposal, noted below: to consolidate the two regimes into a single arbitration code. TIAC in Practice: Rules and Caseload These developments coincide with measurable growth. In the 12 months to January 2025, TIAC’s caseload nearly tripled, reaching 43 international cases, roughly a quarter of which involved two non- Uzbek parties, spanning construction, sale-of-goods, agricultural and energy disputes, with parties from Uzbekistan, from other Commonwealth of Independ -
ent States members, and from the USA, the UK, Chi - na, Türkiye, Italy and elsewhere. Two features of the TIAC Rules assist parties that need speed: an emer - gency arbitrator may be appointed within three busi - ness days of a request for urgent interim relief and must decide this within 15 days, and an expedited procedure is available, on request, for disputes val - ued below USD3 million, allowing a sole arbitrator to proceed on an abbreviated timetable. TIAC’s external integration has advanced in step: in 2022, it adopted Cross-Institutional Rules of Arbitration with the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) for disputes connected to both the Commonwealth of Independent States and Greater China, and the sixth Uzbek Arbitration Week was held in Tashkent from 16 to 19 June 2026 alongside the fifth Tashkent Interna - Whether these reforms deliver will turn less on the leg - islation, which is now in place, than on its execution. Three questions stand out: whether the TIFC is acti - vated and the secondary regulations needed to run the TICC are adopted promptly; whether the judicial appointments to the TICC command international con - fidence; and whether, in the meantime, enforcement practice across the ordinary Uzbek courts becomes more consistent for foreign parties. A further reform under discussion would consolidate the ICA Law and the Law on Domestic Arbitration, newly amended, into a single arbitration code, based on models used in the UK, India, Singapore and Hong Kong, and removing a source of confusion in the current dual regime. tional Investment Forum. Outlook and Conclusion Uzbekistan has, in short, assembled the legislative building blocks for a substantial advance: the Con - stitutional Law is in force, the international regime already meets the international standard, and the institutional pieces are taking shape. The substance of its arbitration law is already sound; the open question is whether the institutions being built around it – above all the TICC, once operational – will make enforcement as reliable in practice as the law is on paper.
1171 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook