Ukraine

In Ukraine, commercial disputes are adjudicated by a distinct branch of the judiciary known as the commercial (economic) courts. These courts resolve conflicts arising in the course of business activities between legal entities and individual entrepreneurs. Their jurisdiction encompasses a broad range of matters, including: disputes related to the conclusion, modification, termination, or performance of commercial contracts; corporate conflicts among company participants, founders, or shareholders; issues concerning property and ownership rights; bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings; and cases involving financial instruments, securities, and competition law.

The commercial court system is organised into three levels:

• local commercial courts;
• commercial courts of appeal; and
• the Commercial Cassation Court within the Supreme Court.

At the first-instance level (local commercial courts), cases are typically heard by a single judge. However, depending on the type and complexity of the case, a panel of three judges may also preside. Appeals against first-instance decisions are reviewed by a panel of three judges. In the cassation court, cases are examined by a panel of three or more judges, always in an odd number.

Commercial litigation in Ukraine is governed by the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine (CPCU). The commercial court proceedings in Ukraine are carried out through two types of procedure:

• simplified; or
• general, depending on the complexity of each case.

General procedure includes a preparation stage before the main hearing. During this stage, the court, among others, identifies the positions of each party, determines what facts must be proven and collects required evidence. The preparation stage must be finished within 60 days from the commencement of the proceedings, with a possible extension of up to 30 days.

The main procedural documents on the merits of a commercial case include:

• the statement of claim;
• the statement of defence;
• the reply to the statement of defence;
• the objections; and
• the explanations of a third party concerning the claim or the statement of defence.

Participants in the proceedings present arguments and explanations on procedural matters through statements and motions, as well as objections to such statements and motions. Electronic filing and online hearings are permitted via Ukraine’s judiciary e-system.

According to Article 19 of the CPCU, parties are required to take measures to settle the dispute out of court, either by mutual agreement or where such measures are mandated by law. In practice, parties often send a written pre-trial claim (demand letter) specifying the breach and requesting voluntary satisfaction of the claim. However, Ukrainian courts consistently emphasise that the right of access to a court cannot be restricted. Therefore, courts generally hold that a party whose rights have been violated may apply directly to a court for dispute resolution without being obliged to follow any pre-trial settlement procedure.

At the same time, parties should also consider evidence collection prior to filing, as all relevant documents must be submitted with the initial claim. Ukrainian courts generally do not allow late submission of evidence unless there is a valid justification.

Parties may also apply for interim measures to secure their future claims: for example, by freezing assets or restricting actions related to the dispute. An application for interim measures can be filed:

• prior to filing a statement of claim;
• simultaneously with filing a claim; or
• after the commencement of proceedings.

If an application for interim measures is filed before the statement of claim itself, the applicant must submit the statement of claim within 10 days.

Additionally, the claimant must ensure payment of the court fee and compliance with jurisdictional requirements.

The Ukrainian legal framework recognises two primary ADR mechanisms: arbitration and mediation. At the same time, the parties are always free to negotiate and reach a settlement of the dispute.

Arbitration in Ukraine is divided into domestic and international.

Domestic arbitration (“treteyski sudy” in Ukrainian) is the mechanism for disputes between Ukrainian business entities. They are constituted and operate under the Domestic Arbitration Law (“Pro Treteyski Sudy” in Ukrainian).

International arbitration is governed by the International Commercial Arbitration Law (ICA Law). International arbitration applies where:

• at least one party is foreign; or
• at least one party qualifies as a company with foreign investments in Ukraine.

Such cases are often administered by the International Commercial Arbitration Court (ICAC) or the Ukrainian Maritime Arbitration Commission at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Kyiv. Once the parties agree to arbitration, it becomes binding, and the resulting arbitral award is subject to enforcement.

Mediation, on the other hand, is a voluntary and cooperative process governed by the Mediation Law. Participation in mediation is entirely voluntary, and any party or the mediator may withdraw at any stage.

The duration of commercial court proceedings in Ukraine depends on the type of procedure, simplified or general. After a claim is filed, the court must open proceedings within five days. Under the simplified procedure, cases should be resolved within a reasonable time, but no later than 60 days from the date proceedings are opened. Under the general procedure, the preparatory stage must be completed within 60 days, which may be extended by up to 30 days. The trial stage then lasts up to 30 days from the beginning of substantive consideration.

In practice, this means that simplified cases typically take approximately 65 days, while general cases take up to approximately 125 days to be reviewed and resolved. However, actual timelines often vary depending on the court’s workload, the complexity of the dispute, and the conduct of the parties.

Ukrainian procedural rules do not impose any disclosure obligations upon the parties to commercial proceedings. Each party is responsible for presenting evidence in support of its position. Parties must submit all evidence they intend to rely on when filing their claim or statement of defence. They are not obligated to disclose documents that may be detrimental to their case or that they do not intend to use.

However, if one party believes that another party holds important evidence, it can request the court to order the disclosure of those specific documents or information. The court may order production if the requesting party adequately justifies the relevance of the materials to the case.

In Ukrainian commercial proceedings, witnesses can be required to attend trial and be questioned by the court or the parties. If a witness statement is submitted, the court may summon the witness for questioning (including by videoconference) if their testimony conflicts with other evidence or appears unreliable or incomplete. If the witness fails to appear without a valid reason, the court disregards their written statement.

Before giving testimony, witnesses are warned about criminal liability for knowingly providing false or misleading information.

Ukrainian courts have broad discretion in awarding costs, which include court fees and case-related expenses, such as experts’ fees and fees for legal representation.

As a general rule, the losing party is required to pay the winning party’s costs. However, the court may apportion costs differently depending on the circumstances. For example, courts assess whether the claimed legal costs are reasonable and proportionate before ordering reimbursement. If the fees are found to be excessive, the court may reduce them at its discretion.

The most common remedies in Ukrainian commercial litigation include:

• freezing assets or funds belonging to the respondent;
• prohibiting the respondent and third parties from taking actions that could affect the subject of the dispute;
• prohibiting third parties from transferring property, making payments, or performing obligations in favour of the respondent;
• suspending enforcement under an existing enforcement document;
• suspending the sale of property when ownership of that property is disputed in court;
• suspending customs clearance of goods suspected of infringing intellectual property rights; or
• arresting a vessel to secure a maritime claim.

This list is not exhaustive and other interim measures may be provided by law and international treaties.

Ukraine is considered an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction. Ukrainian courts grant approximately 90% of applications for the enforcement of arbitral awards, while less than 1% of applications to set aside such awards are successful. The ICA Law is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law (Model Law). This legislation applies to arbitration proceedings where the seat of arbitration is located within the territory of Ukraine.

Arbitrators may, at the request of a party, grant any interim relief they deem necessary pursuant to Article 17 of the ICA Law. Such interim measures may include temporary orders requiring a party to take or refrain from certain actions, maintain the status quo, protect assets, or preserve evidence. A claimant may file an application to the court for interim measures in support of a case submitted to international commercial arbitration. Such an application must be filed with the civil appellate court located either at the seat of arbitration, at the respondent’s place of residence or registration, or at the location of the respondent’s property, at the claimant’s discretion.

Recourse to a court against an arbitral award is limited to an application for setting aside, in accordance with Article 34 of the ICA Law and Article 459 of the Civil Procedural Code of Ukraine (CivPCU).

In particular, an arbitration award may be set aside if any of the following applies:

• a party to the arbitration agreement lacked legal capacity or the arbitration agreement is invalid under the applicable law;
• the opposing party was not properly notified of the appointment of an arbitrator or the proceedings, or was otherwise unable to present their case;
• the award deals with matters not covered by the arbitration agreement or goes beyond its scope (although separable parts may still be enforceable);
• the composition of the tribunal or the procedure did not comply with the parties’ agreement or, failing that, the law of the seat of arbitration;
• the subject matter of the dispute concerns a matter that falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of Ukrainian courts; or
• the award contradicts Ukraine’s public policy.

The Supreme Court has affirmed that courts are not permitted to review the arbitral awards on merits (see, for instance, Supreme Court, Cassation Civil Court, legal position in case No 824/83/23 dated 21 December 2023 at supreme.court.gov.ua/supreme/pres-centr/news/1539671).

At the same time, the CivPCU prohibits certain types of commercial disputes from being resolved through arbitration. These include disputes over the invalidation of public acts, state registration of real estate or securities rights, intellectual property rights (such as registration or termination), bankruptcy-related matters and corporate disputes. Corporate disputes may be submitted to arbitration if all shareholders and the company have agreed to arbitrate. Public procurement, privatisation, and unfair competition disputes may be arbitrated only if their subject matter is limited to civil law aspects (see Article 22).

Ukraine is a party to the most prominent international conventions in the field of arbitration, including:

• the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (NYC);
• the 1961 European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration; and
• the 1965 Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States.

More recently, Ukraine has also acceded to two significant international instruments in the area of cross-border litigation:

• the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements, which establishes uniform rules for the recognition and enforcement of judgments based on exclusive jurisdiction clauses; and
• the 2019 Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters, which streamlines the process for recognising and enforcing foreign judgments among contracting states.

Foreign court judgments are recognised and enforced in Ukraine:

• if their recognition and enforcement are provided for by an international treaty; or
• on the principle of reciprocity, which is presumed unless proven otherwise by a party resisting enforcement.

Such judgment may be submitted for enforcement in Ukraine within three years from the date of its entry into force, except for a judgment on the recovery of periodic payments, which may be enforced throughout the entire period of recovery with the debt repaid over the last three years.

If an international treaty does not specify the grounds on which enforcement of a foreign judgment may be refused, the following grounds, among others, shall apply:

• The foreign court judgment has not become legally effective according to the laws of the country where it was issued.
• The party against whom the judgment was rendered was not duly notified and was therefore unable to participate in the proceedings.
• The judgment concerns a matter that falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of Ukrainian courts or another competent Ukrainian authority. (See Article 77 of the Conflict of Laws Law, outlined below.)
• The judgment is submitted for enforcement in Ukraine after the expiration of a three-year period from the date it became effective (unless the enforcing party can avail itself with the above exception for periodic payments).
• Enforcement of the judgment would pose a threat to the interests of Ukraine.

Article 77 of the Conflict of Laws Law provides that Ukrainian courts have exclusive jurisdiction over certain disputes involving a foreign element. These include, among others, disputes concerning real estate located in Ukraine (with limited exceptions for certain public–private partnership agreements), parent–child legal matters where both parties reside in Ukraine, some inheritance cases, disputes over the registration or issuance of intellectual property rights in Ukraine, matters involving the registration or liquidation of foreign legal entities in Ukraine, challenges regarding the validity of entries in Ukrainian state registries, and bankruptcy cases where the debtor was established under Ukrainian law, as well as disputes over the issuance or cancellation of securities issued in Ukraine.

Separate procedures apply to the recognition of foreign judgments and arbitral awards not requiring enforcement, and the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and arbitral awards.

Foreign judgments and arbitral awards not requiring enforcement

Applications for recognition of a foreign judgment must be submitted to the court at the debtor’s place of residence (or stay), place of business, or, if unknown or absent, the location of the debtor’s property. The application must include a certified copy of the foreign court decision and proof that the decision is final. Certified translations of these documents into Ukrainian must also be provided.

Within five days of receiving the application, the court must notify the interested party and allow one month to file an objection. After this period, the court issues a ruling scheduling the hearing and notifies the parties at least 10 days in advance. The case is heard by a sole judge and concludes with a ruling either granting or refusing recognition (Articles 471–473, CivPCU). Such ruling may be appealed to the respective court of appeal and further to the Supreme Court.

At the same time, applications for recognition of foreign arbitral awards fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Kyiv Appellate Court, which acts as the court of first instance. Its rulings may be appealed to the Supreme Court. Applications for recognition of domestic arbitral awards must be filed with the appellate court at the place of arbitration — typically also the Kyiv Appellate Court.

The time limit for applying is three years from the date the award was made, which may be extended if the applicant provides valid reasons for missing the deadline. Unlike foreign judgments (see response to Question 14, above), recognition of foreign arbitral awards may be refused on the grounds set out in the NYC. Otherwise, the procedure follows that applicable to foreign judgments (Articles 481 and 471–473, CivPCU).

Foreign judgments and arbitral awards requiring enforcement

If a foreign judgment requires enforcement, the application must, in addition to the documents mentioned above, include proof that the debtor was duly notified of the proceedings (if they did not participate), an indication of the part of the decision to be enforced (if applicable), and a power of attorney (if relevant). The enforcement procedure is largely the same as that for recognition.

For the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, the application must include: the original arbitral award or a notarised copy thereof; the original arbitration agreement or its notarised copy; proof of payment of the court fee; copies of the application for all parties (or proof of dispatch if filed electronically); and a power of attorney (if relevant). Certified translations of these documents into Ukrainian must also be provided.

Such an application is to be considered by a single judge within two months of its receipt by the court (Articles 474–479, CivPCU). The court may, at its discretion, suspend the recognition and enforcement proceedings if an application to set aside the arbitral award is pending before a Ukrainian court or a competent foreign court.

Once the court decision granting recognition and enforcement becomes final; that is, after the 30-day appeal period has expired, the court issues a writ of enforcement. This writ serves as the legal basis for initiating enforcement proceedings, which are carried out by a state or private enforcement officer (bailiff).

Ukrainian law also provides a special expedited procedure that allows a debtor to voluntarily initiate the enforcement of a monetary arbitral award, as set out in Article 480 of the CivPCU.

An applicant may request interim measures at any stage of the proceedings, including during the court’s consideration of an application for recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, if such measures are necessary to secure enforcement (Article 477(3), CivPCU). These measures range from the attachment of assets and funds owned by the respondent — or due to be transferred or paid to them, whether held directly by the respondent or by third parties — to injunctions and other forms of interim relief.

Once enforcement proceedings are initiated by a state or private enforcement officer (bailiff), the debtor is required to submit a mandatory declaration disclosing their assets and income. The enforcement officer is vested with broad statutory powers, including the authority to make inquiries to banks regarding the debtor’s accounts, freeze those accounts, forcibly transfer funds, and attach, seize and sell the debtor’s assets. A wide range of assets may be subject to attachment, including receivables owed to the debtor by third parties.

The general rules on attachment apply to funds held in bank accounts. The bailiff issues a resolution on attachment, which is sent electronically to all banks operating in Ukraine, requiring them to immediately identify and freeze the debtor’s accounts (Article 48(2), Enforcement Proceedings Law). However, funds held in foreign bank accounts cannot be seized through Ukrainian enforcement proceedings.

The method of enforcing attachment depends on the nature of the asset. For example, the bailiff may block shares through the depository system or enter a record of attachment into the State Register of Property Rights to Immovable Property (Articles 48 and 56, Enforcement Proceedings Law).

Proceeding on the assumptions outlined in the Model Answer, would a court in this jurisdiction recognise and enforce the arbitral award under the New York Convention?

In particular:

• Does the award fall within the scope of Article V(1) of the Convention, or would any of the grounds in Article V(1) justify refusal on the assumed facts?
• Is the subject matter of the dispute capable of settlement by arbitration under domestic law for the purposes of Article V(2)(a)?
• Would recognition or enforcement of the award be contrary to public policy within the meaning of Article V(2)(b)?

Response

Pursuant to Article V(1)(a) of the NYC and Article 478(1)(1)(a) of the CivPCU, recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award may be refused if the arbitration agreement is found to be invalid under the law chosen by the parties or, in the absence of such a choice, under the law of the country where the award was made. For present purposes, it is assumed that both the law governing the arbitration agreement and the law of the seat recognise the agreement as valid, and that the award itself is valid under the law of the seat.

Although there is no established judicial practice specifically addressing hybrid dispute resolution clauses of this nature, Ukrainian courts are likely to subject such clauses to close scrutiny, as they generally favour clear and exclusive jurisdictional arrangements. In doing so, courts may rely on one or more of the grounds set out in Article V of the NYC, in particular:

• the subject matter of the dispute is not arbitrable under Ukrainian law (Article V(2)(a), NYC; Article 478(1)(2)(a), CivPCU); or
• enforcement would contravene the public policy of Ukraine (Article V(2)(b), NYC; Article 478(1)(2)(b), CivPCU).

Arbitrability

The assumed facts proceed on the premise that non-payment of the monetary component of the judgment gives rise to a dispute capable of arbitration under both the law governing the arbitration agreement and the law of the seat. 

Under Ukrainian law, non-payment of a contractual obligation may constitute an arbitrable dispute. The rules on arbitrability are set out in Article 22 of the CPCU and provide that: “A dispute that falls within the jurisdiction of a commercial court may be referred by the parties to an arbitral tribunal or to international commercial arbitration.”

Ukrainian law further sets out exceptions and additional requirements for certain types of disputes — such as corporate, privatisation, antitrust, bankruptcy, intellectual property, and public procurement matters — which are not applicable in the present case. Strictly speaking, issues of non-arbitrability under Ukrainian law arise most clearly where a dispute concerns the acts or decisions of Ukrainian state bodies acting in their public capacity.

There is also favourable Supreme Court practice confirming that, even where liability and quantum are not contested by the parties, a genuine dispute may still exist. In case No. 279/3579/18 (ruling dated 29 August 2019), the Supreme Court confirmed that the existence of a court decision or a resolution initiating enforcement proceedings that has not been enforced does not, in itself, establish the absence of a dispute. Rather, the absence of a dispute may be established only by the conduct of the parties or by circumstances demonstrating that no outstanding issues remain between them, or that all disputed matters have been independently resolved (see also resolutions of the Supreme Court in cases No. 175/1836/21 dated 20 February 2026 and No. 592/16239/19 dated 21 July 2021). 

Thus, under a conventional and arbitration-friendly application of the New York Convention, the scenario in question should not engage Article 478(1)(2)(a) of the CivPCU.

Public policy

According to the assumed facts the parties agreed to a two-pronged dispute resolution mechanism: first, a final judgment for payment of a monetary sum has been obtained in the parties’ chosen court; second, the arbitral tribunal (a) confirms that the judgment is final and remains unpaid after 28 days; and (b) orders payment of the contractual sum and interest, without investigating or re-litigating the underlying merits of the original court dispute. It is also assumed that the arbitration clause contains provisions preventing double recovery in respect of the judgment and the award.

Under Ukrainian law, the concept of public policy is interpreted broadly. For instance, the Supreme Court has previously recognised that the public policy exception may be engaged where an award contravenes the fundamental principles of justice and fairness, including the finality of Ukrainian court decisions and their enforceability. In particular, the Supreme Court has refused to enforce a foreign arbitral award on the ground that such enforcement would undermine the finality and execution of a Ukrainian court judgment granting enforcement of another award (see the Supreme Court's resolution in case No. 824/178/19 dated 14 January 2021).

Articles 462–470 of the CivPCU establish the formal procedure for recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, which differs from that applicable to the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, as discussed in response to questions 14-15. Importantly, the grounds for refusing enforcement of foreign judgments are broader than those set out in the NYC.

The enforcement of judicial decisions through arbitral awards differs from the enforcement of arbitral awards through judicial decisions, as the latter is specifically governed by the NYC, which provides limited, largely procedural grounds for refusing such enforcement. In turn, the procedure for enforcing judicial decisions is governed by Ukrainian law. It may therefore be argued that reliance on the narrower grounds for enforcement under the NYC seeks to create a parallel (or alternative) enforcement route, potentially circumventing Ukraine’s established judicial regime for the enforcement of court judgments, irrespective of any safeguards against double recovery.  

Thus, if the arbitral award is ultimately regarded as bypassing or undermining the established system for enforcing foreign judgments, its recognition may be refused on the ground that it contravenes Ukrainian public policy under Article 478(1)(2)(b) of the CivPCU.