Expanding the Use of Mediated Settlements at All Stages of Economic Court Proceedings

The research problem

The effective resolution of economic disputes depends not only on the lawfulness of a judicial act, but also on the prompt restoration of the parties’ infringed rights, the stability of economic activity and the actual performance of the obligations undertaken. Increasingly complex economic relations, a growing volume of contractual obligations and rising court caseloads require improvements to dispute resolution mechanisms based on mutual agreement.

At a videoconference on the administration of justice held on 30 June 2020, President of the Republic of Uzbekistan Shavkat Mirziyoyev stated: ‘Everyone who comes to the courthouse must leave with confidence that justice is what reigns in Uzbekistan.’ [1] Applying this policy and legal approach to economic justice requires a broader understanding of justice than the delivery of a binding judgment alone. It also calls for greater opportunities to restore rights through lawful and genuinely voluntary agreement.

The Presidential Resolution of 17 June 2020 ‘On Measures to Further Improve Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms’ sets out the objectives of developing mediation, domestic arbitration and international arbitration into effective institutions trusted by entrepreneurs, expanding alternative avenues for dispute resolution and optimising court workloads. [2] The development of mediation is therefore a continuing strand of judicial and legal reform.

At the same time, the current Economic Procedure Code (hereinafter, the EPC) permits an amicable settlement at any stage of judicial proceedings, whereas a mediated settlement may be concluded only before the court of first instance retires to the deliberation room to adopt a judicial act. [4] Reassessing this distinction in the light of recent legislation and comparative experience is the central research problem addressed in this article.

The aim of the research is to substantiate a legal model that enables a mediated settlement to produce procedural effects at every stage of economic proceedings while preserving the stability of judicial acts and the rights of third parties. The methods used are doctrinal legal analysis, systemic analysis, comparative legal analysis, statistical analysis and the synthesis of judicial practice.

Uzbek legal scholarship

Research on mediation in Uzbek legal scholarship has developed primarily along three lines: its legal nature as an independent institution of alternative dispute resolution; its interaction with court proceedings and enforcement proceedings; and the practical conditions for its use in economic and investment relations. These strands provide a theoretical foundation for assessing the procedural recognition of mediated settlements in higher courts.

In ‘An Important Step towards Introducing Mediation: Foreign and National Experience’ (2020), Kh. Odilqoriev and Sh. Ghanibaeva compare the legal development of mediation, its incorporation into national legislation, and the strengths and weaknesses of foreign and domestic mechanisms. [22] Their approach points to the need to develop mediation as an independent institution adapted to the procedural characteristics of the national justice system, rather than as a ready-made copy of a foreign model. In our view, this is particularly important for reform concerning higher courts: a procedure suitable for appeal cannot simply be replicated unchanged in cassation or revision proceedings.

In ‘The Role of Mediation in Dispute Resolution and Enforcement’ (2019), Z. Esanova discusses the significance of mediation both alongside judicial protection and at the compulsory enforcement stage. [23] The author observes that mediation during enforcement does not replace the work of the state enforcement officer; it provides an additional opportunity for the parties to resolve their dispute. This is important because the binding force of a judicial act and a subsequent voluntary agreement between the parties need not be treated as incompatible. However, the availability of mediation during enforcement does not, by itself, settle the legal consequences of mediated settlements in appeal, cassation and revision proceedings.

In ‘Mediation as a New Method of Alternative Dispute Resolution in Uzbekistan’ (2021), D. Habibullaev and A. Khayrulina show that judicial resolution of a legal dispute does not always eliminate the underlying economic and social conflict between the parties. [24] In their view, the need to preserve business and partnership relations is one reason for using alternative methods. This conclusion is particularly relevant to economic disputes: even after judgment, the parties may retain an interest in continuing their contractual relationship, rescheduling an obligation or agreeing to pay a debt in instalments. Such interests must nevertheless not be pursued at the expense of third-party rights or mandatory rules.

In ‘Procedural Features of Applying Mediation in Civil and Economic Cases: National and Foreign Experience’ (2022), I. Salimova proposes identifying the categories of cases suitable for mediation, developing mechanisms for compulsory enforcement where a mediated settlement is not performed voluntarily, and shortening periods of suspension of proceedings for mediation. [25] One of these proposals, procedural support for enforcement of the settlement, acquired new legal significance when Law No. ORQ-1089 of 20 October 2025 introduced a procedure in the EPC for issuing a writ of execution. [6] A gap nevertheless remains concerning the effect of a mediated settlement concluded in a higher court on an earlier judicial act. Providing an enforcement guarantee and resolving the question of procedural recognition are therefore distinct tasks.

In her research on alternative methods of resolving investment disputes, M. Yakubova examines how negotiation, mediation and arbitration can save time and costs in economic activity, give the parties control over the process and preserve cooperative relationships. [26] This approach connects mediation with the legal infrastructure of the business environment. However, where investment disputes involve the state’s public-law powers or the rights of third parties, freedom of settlement cannot be absolute; the limits on the use of mediation in such disputes must be defined by law.

In their 2026 study, Kh. Abraev and D. Chorieva consider the legal and practical development of mediation in Uzbekistan, including the strengthened mechanism for issuing a writ of execution in respect of a mediated settlement, the professional training of mediators and issues of investment attractiveness. [27] Their approach demonstrates that the effectiveness of mediation depends not merely on the existence of substantive and procedural rules, but also on qualified mediators, clear enforcement procedures and institutional trust.

The national literature places particular emphasis on voluntariness, the preservation of business relationships and the possibility of resolving disputes at lower cost. Further research is nevertheless needed into the effect of a mediated settlement reached in a higher court on an existing judicial act, its procedural approval, and the prevention of multiple grounds for enforcement arising from the same dispute. Our article’s distinct scholarly contribution is a mechanism that addresses these questions through procedures differentiated by stage, reconciling the stability of judicial acts with the parties’ freedom to dispose of their rights.

Theoretical and constitutional foundations

Legal doctrine treats mediation as a means of moving from an adversarial contest between opposing legal positions to identifying the parties’ underlying interests and developing a mutually acceptable solution. The theory of principled negotiation developed by R. Fisher, W. Ury and B. Patton advocates attention to interests rather than positions, the search for options of mutual benefit and the use of objective criteria. [13] This approach provides a theoretical basis for solutions in economic disputes such as paying a debt by instalments over an agreed period or continuing a contractual relationship.

C. Menkel-Meadow studies legal negotiation as a form of creative problem-solving, showing how it can identify the parties’ needs and goals beyond the formal subject matter of their legal dispute. [14] F. Sander’s idea of the ‘multi-door courthouse’ rests on selecting a process suited to the characteristics of each dispute, instead of directing every dispute along the same litigation route. [15] At the same time, D. Hensler cautions against treating alternative dispute resolution as a complete substitute for the judicial system and critically examines its effects on access to justice and procedural safeguards. [16]

These approaches suggest that the value of mediation lies in offering the parties a lawful and voluntary choice alongside judicial protection, rather than in compelling all disputes towards settlement. Article 55 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uzbekistan guarantees everyone the right to protect their rights and freedoms by all means not prohibited by law and to seek judicial protection. [3] Mediation consequently supplements, rather than replaces, the right of access to justice.

The Law ‘On Mediation’ enshrines the principles of voluntariness, confidentiality, equality and cooperation of the parties, and the independence and impartiality of the mediator. [5] These principles must also be preserved in higher courts. Compulsion to mediate, or judicial influence over the substance of a settlement, would be inconsistent with the nature of mediation.

The current procedural framework

Article 130 of the EPC requires the court to assist the parties in reaching a settlement. Article 131 provides that the parties may conclude an amicable settlement or a mediated settlement in any case brought by way of a claim. However, the third paragraph of that article differentiates their temporal scope: an amicable settlement may be concluded at any stage of economic proceedings and during enforcement, while a mediated settlement may be concluded in the court of first instance before the court retires to deliberate. [4]

The legislation thus creates a procedural asymmetry between the general duty to facilitate reconciliation and the limited scope for giving procedural effect to a mediated settlement within court proceedings. This should not be recast as the absolute proposition that mediation is prohibited altogether after judgment. Article 17 of the Law ‘On Mediation’ provides for mediation during the enforcement of judicial acts and acts of other bodies, and for the resulting settlement to be submitted to the state enforcement officer. [5] The problem is therefore not an absolute prohibition on mediation. It is the insufficient regulation of the effect that a mediated settlement concluded in appeal, cassation or revision proceedings has on judicial acts, and of the procedure for recognising that settlement.

Article 107, item 5³, of the EPC identifies the conclusion of a mediated settlement as a ground for leaving the statement of claim without consideration. By contrast, under Articles 110 and 133, a court-approved amicable settlement results in the termination of proceedings. [4] This distinction is substantive: after judgment has been delivered, simply leaving the claim without consideration does not automatically remove the legal force of the earlier judicial act. Mediated settlements therefore require specific procedural consequences appropriate to higher-court proceedings.

Law No. ORQ-1089 of 20 October 2025 marked an important step in the development of mediation. It added Chapter 29², comprising Articles 232¹⁰–232¹⁴, to the EPC and introduced a procedure for issuing a writ of execution in respect of a mediated settlement that has not been performed voluntarily. Under that procedure, the court does not reconsider the merits of the dispute that led to the settlement; it applies the statutory review requirements and grounds for refusal. [6] The reform strengthened the enforceability of mediated settlements, but did not fully resolve their procedural consequences in higher courts in relation to an earlier judicial act.

Legal reform should therefore not be confined to removing the time limit in Article 131. Articles 107, 110 and 133, the powers of higher courts and the rules governing enforcement proceedings must be coordinated.

Guidance from the higher courts

Under paragraph 32 of Resolution No. 13 of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Uzbekistan of 24 May 2019, ‘On Certain Issues Concerning the Application of Economic Procedural Law by the Court of First Instance’, the court should ascertain, during preparation and hearing of the case, whether the parties can conclude an amicable or mediated settlement. [7] This instruction expresses the court’s active procedural responsibility to facilitate reconciliation.

Paragraph 32¹ explains that, where the dispute has already been resolved after the claim was accepted for proceedings, for example because the defendant has satisfied the claim, that situation may not subsequently be formalised as a mediated settlement. Plenum Resolution No. 39 of 16 December 2024 extended this explanation to agreements concluded without compliance with the Law ‘On Mediation’. Paragraph 32², introduced by Resolution No. 10 of 29 April 2025, excludes certain disputes affecting third parties and public interests from the scope of mediation. [7] This mechanism helps prevent the use of mediation as a device for circumventing state-duty rules and other legal restrictions.

Resolution No. 204 of the Plenum of the Supreme Economic Court of 18 December 2009, as subsequently amended, requires courts approving amicable settlements to examine the parties’ genuine intentions, the clarity of the terms, third-party rights, pledges and restrictions on the disposal of property. In particular, paragraphs 12–14 establish important safeguards concerning the substance of judicial scrutiny. [8] These explanations do not directly regulate the approval of mediated settlements, but they provide relevant safeguards for a future mechanism applicable in higher courts.

Resolution No. 16 of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of 23 June 2023 reiterates the importance of directly applying constitutional provisions, including guarantees of judicial protection. [9] Encouragement to reconcile must therefore not become pressure to relinquish judicial protection.

Court statistics and judicial practice

The Supreme Court’s economic court statistics for 2021–2025 were analysed. [10] Two methodological limitations were taken into account: the data primarily concern cases completed at first instance, and cases left without consideration following a mediated settlement are not identical to the total number of disputes in which mediation was attempted.

The table shows that the relative indicator was highest in 2023. In 2025, although the number of cases left without consideration following a mediated settlement rose somewhat compared with 2024, their proportion of the overall caseload declined. Across 2021–2025, a total of 17,888 cases were left without consideration on grounds connected with the mediation procedure; 17,692 of these specifically involved the conclusion of a mediated settlement. The remaining cases fell under other mediation-related grounds in Article 107 of the EPC. [10]

Applications for approval of an amicable settlement concluded during enforcement numbered 468 in 2024 and 1,399 in 2025; 1,165 of the 2025 applications were granted. [10] These figures indicate a continuing practical need for agreement after judgment. They concern amicable settlements, however, rather than mediated settlements, and cannot be treated as direct evidence that mediation took place during appeal or cassation proceedings.

An official Supreme Court report describes a debt dispute between Asaka Pakhta Tozalash JSC and Vodiy Sanoat Fakhri LLC in which the parties concluded a mediated settlement and the court left the claim without consideration. [11] In a dispute between SARXON LLC and SEVINCH LLC, the parties reached a mediated settlement providing for payment of approximately UZS 704 million in principal debt within a short period and withdrawal of a claim for UZS 350 million in penalties. [12] These examples illustrate mediation’s capacity to deliver flexible solutions within contractual relationships. The published reports do not, however, provide complete information on the subsequent actual performance of the settlements.

Case No. 19-1702/7182, discussed in the Supreme Court’s review of judicial practice for the fourth quarter of 2018, highlights a further issue. It concerned a court-approved amicable settlement, not a mediated settlement. The settlement did not cover all the claims, some terms contradicted one another, and the writ of execution also provided for recourse against pledged property that was not contemplated in the court’s ruling. The Supreme Court set aside the relevant judicial act and remitted the case for reconsideration. [17, pp. 8–10] This case demonstrates that procedural recognition of mediated settlements in higher courts likewise requires clear terms, review of legality and consistency with the enforcement instrument.

Taken together, the national statistics and practical examples demonstrate the effectiveness of mediation and support expanding the opportunities for its use in appeal, cassation and revision proceedings as a means of reducing court workloads, promoting procedural economy and resolving disputes by agreement.

Comparative experience

In the Republic of Kazakhstan, specialised economic courts hear economic disputes under the Civil Procedure Code, rather than a separate Economic Procedure Code. Article 179 allows the parties to request resolution of their dispute through mediation with the assistance of a judge or mediator at first instance, on appeal and in cassation. At the cassation stage, mediation is permitted only if it does not require suspension of the hearing or additional procedural steps. [18] This model demonstrates the possibility of tailoring conciliation procedures to the characteristics of each judicial instance. The existence of judicial mediation in Kazakhstan’s civil procedure does not mean that Uzbekistan should unconditionally reproduce the same mechanism. Institutional safeguards concerning judicial impartiality and the subsequent hearing of the case require separate assessment.

Article 138 of the Arbitrazh Procedure Code of the Russian Federation permits reconciliation at any stage of an economic dispute and during enforcement of a judicial act. [19] It distinguishes the conciliation process from the procedural recognition of its outcome in court proceedings. An important lesson from Russian practice is that expanding access to mediation does not automatically set aside a judicial act: the procedural consequences must be regulated separately.

Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Union, which primarily concerns cross-border civil and commercial disputes, provides in Article 5 for courts to invite the parties to use mediation. Article 6 establishes a mechanism for making the content of a written mediated settlement enforceable, subject to specified conditions. [20] The Directive also requires the preservation of access to the courts. The significant feature of this model is the coordination of voluntariness with enforceability.

Section 12 of Singapore’s Mediation Act 2017 allows a mediated settlement relating to a dispute in which court proceedings have not been commenced to be recorded as a court order, subject to prescribed requirements. The court may refuse on grounds such as fraud, coercion, inability to enforce the agreement or inconsistency with public policy. [21] It must be emphasised that section 12 does not provide a universal procedure for every stage of litigation that has already begun. Its principal value here lies in the safeguards governing the conversion of a settlement into an enforceable judicial instrument.

The comparative analysis shows that jurisdictions implement the idea of mediation at every stage through different conciliation, approval and enforcement mechanisms, rather than through a single uniform procedural device. The appropriate course for Uzbekistan is therefore to develop a model differentiated by stage and consistent with the structure of the EPC, instead of mechanically transplanting a particular foreign rule.

Benefits, risks and safeguards

The potential benefits of using mediated settlements in higher courts include reduced procedural costs, preservation of long-term business relationships, realistic debt-recovery schedules, encouragement of voluntary performance and better management of judicial workloads. In disputes involving an enterprise with limited payment capacity but continuing operations, an agreed payment plan may be economically more effective than full compulsory enforcement of a judicial act. These are potential advantages: their scale cannot be guaranteed in advance without empirical assessment.

The risks are also substantial. A debtor may use mediation to delay enforcement; a stronger economic actor may impose unfavourable terms on a weaker party; pledged property and the interests of creditors or the public budget may be affected; and conflicts may arise between enforcement instruments issued under an earlier judgment and those based on a new settlement. A general rule allowing mediation at every stage is therefore insufficient on its own.

The proposed safeguards should rest on the following principles: (a) genuine voluntariness and mediator impartiality; (b) clear and enforceable settlement terms; (c) respect for the interests of third parties, the public and the state; (d) determination, in a single procedural instrument, of the legal fate of earlier judicial acts and writs of execution; (e) no automatic suspension of appeal time limits by mediation, and protection against its use to delay enforcement; and (f) allocation of mediation costs by agreement between the parties, with litigation costs and state duty dealt with as prescribed by legislation. These requirements are consistent with Article 55 of the Constitution, the EPC and the explanations of the Supreme Court Plenum. [3; 4; 7; 8]

Six proposals for legislative reform

First, the third paragraph of Article 131 of the EPC should be revised to read as follows:

‘The parties may conclude an amicable settlement or a mediated settlement at any stage of economic court proceedings, as well as during the enforcement of a judicial act, taking into account the specific requirements established by this Code and other legislative acts.’

This wording should constitute only the article’s general rule. It must be accompanied by provisions differentiating the consequences of a mediated settlement according to the judicial instance concerned.

Second, a special provision should be introduced for higher courts. On appeal, the parties should have a short and controlled procedural opportunity to reach a settlement with a mediator’s assistance. In cassation and revision proceedings, the stability of judicial acts and the courts’ reviewing function suggest that the principal options should be submission of an already completed mediated settlement or its prompt finalisation. This proposal must neither alter the legal nature of higher-court proceedings nor turn the court into a participant in negotiations.

Third, judicial acts and their enforcement should be coordinated. Where a mediated settlement is concluded in a higher court, legislation must clearly regulate the fate of earlier judicial acts and the enforcement of writs issued on their basis. A mediated settlement must not automatically annul a judicial act; its procedural consequences should be determined by an appropriate judicial act, and double recovery in respect of the same obligation must be prevented.

Fourth, Articles 107, 110 and 133 of the EPC should be harmonised. Under the current legislation, the conclusion of a mediated settlement is a ground for leaving the claim without consideration, whereas judicial approval of an amicable settlement is a ground for terminating proceedings. When mediated settlements are used in higher courts, a distinct procedural mechanism should therefore govern the setting aside of earlier judicial acts, the conclusion of proceedings and the determination of the settlement’s legal consequences. This would provide legal certainty while preserving the distinctive legal characteristics of mediated and amicable settlements.

Fifth, monitoring of judicial practice on mediation should be improved. Court statistics should separately record cases referred to mediation, mediations conducted, mediated settlements concluded, instances in which no settlement was reached, settlements concluded during appeal, cassation and revision proceedings, and their voluntary and compulsory enforcement. Such a system would help assess the practical effectiveness of mediation, identify difficulties in judicial practice and develop evidence-based proposals for legislative improvement.

Sixth, the scope of judicial scrutiny should be limited and clearly defined. Without examining the confidential substance of mediation negotiations, the court should verify the parties’ authority, the legality of the settlement, the voluntariness of its signature, the clarity of the obligations and the interests of third parties. Whether judges themselves should conduct mediation requires a separate assessment in the light of judicial impartiality and their power to decide the case subsequently.

Conclusion

The research identifies legal grounds for reconsidering the distinction between restricting mediated settlements in economic litigation to first-instance proceedings and allowing amicable settlements at every stage. Law No. ORQ-1089 of 2025 improved the compulsory enforcement of mediated settlements. However, an integrated procedural mechanism determining their effect on earlier judicial acts in appeal, cassation and revision courts still requires a distinct theoretical and legislative solution.

The central scholarly proposal is to enable the procedural recognition of mediated settlements at every stage of economic proceedings through rules differentiated by stage. This requires comprehensive coordination of Article 131 of the EPC with the rules on termination of proceedings, review of judicial acts and enforcement. Such reform can deliver appropriate results only if it preserves a balance between procedural economy, the parties’ freedom to dispose of their rights, legal certainty and legality.