Author: Aslan Kuatbek
Can a foreign arbitral award be recognised and enforced through the Court of the Astana International Financial Centre (AIFC) against a debtor’s assets in Kazakhstan?
A recent case involving Naftogaz and Gazprom shows that the answer is not necessarily straightforward.
Naftogaz sought to recover approximately USD 1.4 billion from Gazprom on the basis of an ICC arbitration award rendered in Switzerland. To enforce the award against Gazprom’s assets in Kazakhstan, Naftogaz applied to the AIFC Court for recognition and enforcement of the award.
On 15 May 2026, the AIFC Court issued an interim order in favour of Naftogaz. Such an order may be issued on an application by one party under a simplified procedure, with the respondent subsequently given an opportunity to challenge it.
Gazprom exercised that right. After both parties had presented their positions, the AIFC Court considered whether it had jurisdiction to recognise and enforce the foreign arbitral award.
On 7 July 2026, the Court set aside its earlier order.
The reason was that the AIFC Court did not have the necessary jurisdiction in respect of the award in question. The Court concluded that a foreign arbitral award which does not have the necessary connection with the AIFC cannot be recognised and enforced through the AIFC Court.
This aspect of the case is particularly relevant to companies involved in international contracts, arbitration and assets in Kazakhstan.
Naftogaz and Gazprom had chosen ICC arbitration seated in Switzerland. The application to the AIFC Court was made at the enforcement stage, based on the existence of Gazprom’s assets in Kazakhstan.
The Court nevertheless found that the mere presence of a debtor’s assets in Kazakhstan was not sufficient to establish its jurisdiction.
The Court proceeded on the basis that recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award must fall within the statutory grounds for AIFC jurisdiction. In this case, the parties had chosen ICC arbitration in Switzerland and had not established the requisite connection with the AIFC.
The practical implication is significant: the AIFC Court cannot be treated as a universal forum for enforcing any foreign arbitral award against assets located in Kazakhstan.
For a creditor, this is a question of selecting the right enforcement route. For a debtor, it may provide grounds for challenging an application brought before the AIFC Court.
The case also highlights a separate procedural point.
The initial order was issued on one party’s application under a simplified procedure, with the respondent given a period in which to challenge it.
Gazprom exercised that right. The Court then considered the parties’ respective positions and the scope of its own jurisdiction.
The key point is that the initial order was not the final outcome of the case. Its subsequent setting aside followed the Court’s consideration of whether it had the necessary jurisdiction to recognise and enforce the foreign arbitral award.
For a debtor, this means that an interim order should not simply be left unanswered. The grounds for the order, the applicable deadlines and the available grounds for challenge — including jurisdictional grounds — should be reviewed without delay.
For a creditor, the lesson is equally important: before commencing enforcement proceedings, it is worth establishing that the chosen forum has the necessary jurisdiction to hear the application.
The proceedings before the AIFC Court in the Naftogaz case took several months before the issue of whether this enforcement route was available was ultimately determined.
This illustrates the practical importance of the issue. Where a debtor has assets in Kazakhstan, identifying their location is not enough. It is also necessary to establish in advance which enforcement mechanism can be used against those assets and which court has the necessary jurisdiction.
The Naftogaz case was one of the first cases in which the scope of the AIFC Court’s jurisdiction in relation to the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award against assets in Kazakhstan arose for determination in practice.
The choice of enforcement route can therefore have a direct impact on the time and costs involved. Before commencing proceedings, it is important to understand which mechanism applies to the particular assets and what procedural steps will be required to move from obtaining an award to securing its actual enforcement.
The Naftogaz v Gazprom case is relevant not only to disputes that have already arisen.
When negotiating international agreements, companies typically consider an arbitration clause primarily in terms of where a potential dispute will be heard. In practice, it is equally important to consider where and how an arbitral award may ultimately be enforced.
The choice of arbitral forum and dispute resolution mechanism can have consequences at the enforcement stage.
Companies using the AIFC as part of their corporate structures, or considering its mechanisms as part of their contractual or investment arrangements, should therefore take current AIFC Court practice and potential legislative changes into account.
Where a creditor holds a foreign arbitral award and the debtor is known to have assets in Kazakhstan, the question of jurisdiction should be considered before enforcement proceedings are commenced.
In particular, it is important to establish whether there is a legal basis for applying to the AIFC Court or whether another mechanism for recognition and enforcement in Kazakhstan should be used.
If a company is the debtor and receives an interim order from the AIFC Court, it is important not to miss the applicable deadline for challenging it. One of the issues that should be reviewed in such circumstances is whether the Court has the necessary jurisdiction in the particular case.
The Naftogaz v Gazprom case is significant because it demonstrates that the existence of assets in Kazakhstan does not, by itself, make it possible to enforce a foreign arbitral award through the AIFC Court.
When determining an enforcement strategy, it is necessary to consider not only the terms of the arbitral award and the location of the debtor’s assets, but also the court’s jurisdiction, the applicable procedure and the statutory grounds for recognition and enforcement.
As the relevant case law continues to develop, enforcement and asset protection strategies should be assessed in light of the latest court decisions and potential legislative changes.
REVERA Kazakhstan advises on matters involving international arbitration, recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, and debt recovery in Kazakhstan.
We assist clients in assessing potential enforcement routes before proceedings are commenced, identifying jurisdictional risks and developing an appropriate strategy — whether acting for a creditor seeking recovery or a debtor defending its assets.
If your company has a foreign arbitral award that needs to be enforced in Kazakhstan, or enforcement action is already being taken against your assets, assessing the available enforcement route and jurisdiction at an early stage can materially affect the strategy that follows.
