Ukraine - Market Insights

For local and foreign businesses alike, Ukraine today is a jurisdiction where wartime risks coexist with active reforms and the rapid modernisation of the court system. In the field of commercial litigation, this is reflected in the growing number of cases, the emergence of new categories of disputes, and a gradual shift toward a more digital and less formalistic process.

Growth of disputes in a wartime economy

Despite the realities of war, commercial courts in Ukraine are seeing steady quantitative growth across several key categories of disputes. By the end of 2025, there was a significant increase in claims for recovery of debts for supplied goods and services, as well as disputes related to property rights and bankruptcy proceedings.

The reasons for this growth are complex. The Ukrainian economy continues to operate under full-scale war conditions, which has led to structural changes in the business environment. Many companies have ceased operations, relocated, or undergone restructuring. At the same time, assets are being redistributed among financial and industrial groups, naturally increasing the number of property and corporate conflicts.

In addition, many disputes that arose in 2021–2025 did not immediately move to the litigation stage. They remained in a “waiting phase” due to uncertainty about the future of the Ukrainian state and the suspension of limitation periods (which was in effect up until September 2025). In many cases, references to force majeure also prevented the initiation of proceedings. As businesses adapted to the new reality, what was considered force majeure in 2022 was no longer treated as such in 2025, and disputes began to enter the courts.

Key drivers of dispute growth include:

• deterioration of payment discipline;
• bankruptcies and business restructurings;
• redistribution of assets and corporate rights;
• transformation of markets and logistics chains;
• gradual business adaptation to wartime conditions;
• restoration and recalculation of limitation periods; and
• war-related business losses (destroyed assets, mined agricultural land, damage to ports and rail infrastructure, force-majeure events, blackouts, etc).

At the same time, the wartime economy has created entirely new types of disputes that were previously relatively marginal or non-existent in commercial court practice. These include:

• disputes over force majeure and material adverse change;
• disputes arising from the inability to perform defence contracts;
• recourse claims among insurers, reinsurers, contractors, and customers; and
• claims for compensation for war-related damage.

In the coming years, these categories are likely to form a separate segment of commercial litigation related to economic recovery and resource redistribution.

Despite a noticeable shortage of judges, commercial courts continue to demonstrate stable performance in terms of the number of resolved cases, procedural timelines, and predictability of outcomes. This is partly due to the relatively strong technical infrastructure of commercial courts. Even though Ukraine’s energy sector has suffered severe damage from Russian attacks causing systemic power supply issues, commercial courts have been less affected thanks to better access to backup power sources.

Case duration and overall efficiency

Statistics from the past two years show that a commercial case in the court of first instance is resolved, on average, within three months. This is a relatively competitive number even compared with many EU jurisdictions, especially given the wartime context.

Approximately 80% of decisions of local commercial courts are not appealed. This may indicate a relatively high level of quality and predictability of judgments, but it also reflects the deterrent effect of relatively high court fees.

The structure of case movement in Ukraine is as follows:

• around 80% of decisions are not appealed;
• approximately 20% of cases are reviewed on appeal; and
• only about 30% of appellate cases reach the Commercial Cassation Court (part of the Supreme Court).

The Commercial Cassation Court is the least burdened among cassation courts and opens proceedings in about 67% of cases appealed to it. Importantly, more often than other Ukrainian cassation courts, it delivers final decisions without remanding cases for a new trial.

For businesses, this means:

• shorter overall dispute timelines;
• lower procedural costs; and
• greater predictability of outcomes.

Digitalisation as a new procedural culture

One of the key trends in recent years has been the digital transformation of the judiciary. Ukraine has gradually expanded the system of electronic interaction between courts and litigants known as the “Electronic Court”. This system allows parties to:

• file procedural documents online;
• receive court decisions electronically;
• track the progress of cases; and
• perform procedural actions without physical presence in court, including participating in hearings using personal laptops and other devices from anywhere in Ukraine or abroad.

However, digitalisation is no longer just a technical tool. It is shaping a new procedural culture characterised by:

• faster document exchange;
• reduced formalism;
• fewer paper-based procedures;
• greater transparency; and
• fewer opportunities for procedural abuse.

At the same time, lawyers, judges, and court staff are increasingly using artificial intelligence tools for:

• legal research and case law analysis;
• structuring procedural documents;
• processing large volumes of data;
• calculating penalties; and
• preparing initial drafts of legal arguments.

Such use requires proper verification and compliance with confidentiality standards, but it has already become a routine element of modern litigation practice.

Procedural “de-bureaucratisation” and simplification

Another important trend is the gradual abandonment of archaic procedural concepts and excessive formalism.

A notable example is the abolition of the deliberation room requirement, which for many years remained a formal element of the process but did not reflect the actual organisation of judicial work. In practice, this requirement was often used as a reason to delay decisions and prolong proceedings.

Its abolition forms part of a broader trend toward:

• simplifying procedural rules;
• removing outdated procedural constructs; and
• increasing flexibility of court proceedings.

At the same time, further amendments to the Commercial Procedure Code are being prepared, aiming to:

• continue digitalisation of the process;
• reduce formal procedural stages; and
• limit opportunities for procedural abuse.

Private law reform and the abolition of the Commercial Code

Alongside procedural changes, Ukraine is undergoing a significant transformation of its private law framework (notably its part which is relevant for commercial disputes).

In 2025, the Commercial Code, which had been in force since 2004 and largely duplicated — often in some incoherent way — the Civil Code, was abolished. As part of the reform, the decision was made to move toward a single codified act — the Civil Code of Ukraine — with the integration of selected commercial law provisions thereinto. Work on this recodification is ongoing.

Key areas of reform include:

• updating organisational and legal forms of enterprises;
• clearer regulation of corporate rights and obligations;
• phasing out outdated legal concepts such as the right of economic management; and
• harmonisation of legislation with the EU law.

For businesses, this means a gradual transition to a more unified and predictable private law framework, which should help to decrease the number of commercial disputes and to make their resolution more predictable.

Judicial staffing shortages and institutional restructuring

Judicial reform has also directly affected two key judicial governance bodies: the High Qualification Commission of Judges and the High Council of Justice.

For a long time, their activities were effectively blocked, which resulted in:

• a critical shortage of judges;
• delays in case consideration; and
• limited disciplinary mechanisms.

As of today, both bodies have been reconstituted and are functioning, but full staffing of the courts is still far from complete. In some regions, courts are effectively non-operational due to the absence of judges, which also affects commercial disputes.

Key takeaways for businesses

Ukrainian commercial litigation today is shaped by three parallel processes:

• a wartime economy generating new types of disputes;
• digitalisation transforming procedural culture; and
• gradual deregulation and simplification of court procedures.

Despite the war and staffing shortages, the judicial system has demonstrated a significant capacity to adapt. Commercial courts remain the primary and relatively effective mechanism for protecting business rights.

From a practical perspective, this means:

• dispute timelines remain relatively predictable;
• digital tools simplify access to justice; and
• key reforms are aimed at increasing transparency and predictability.

If the current reform continues and staffing issues are gradually resolved, Ukrainian commercial litigation has strong prospects for further strengthening business confidence and deeper integration into the European legal space.