UKRAINE Law and Practice Contributed by: Olena Perepelynska, Krystyna Khripkova, Nadiya Mykiyevych and Anna Kozyrieva, IMPACTA LAW
12.3 Approach of the Courts Ukrainian courts generally adopt a pro-enforcement approach towards the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. A competent Ukrainian court may refuse recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbi - tral award on the grounds set out in Article V of the New York Convention, which are substantially repli - cated in the CPCU and the ICA Law. These grounds are exhaustive and may not be supplemented by ref - erence to domestic law. Although public policy is among the most frequently invoked grounds for resisting enforcement, Ukrain - ian courts generally interpret this exception narrowly. Ukrainian law does not expressly distinguish between domestic public policy and international public policy. Article 478 of the CPCU refers to “public policy of Ukraine” when assessing whether to refuse recogni - tion and enforcement of arbitral awards. In practice, Ukrainian courts interpret a violation of “public policy of Ukraine” as limited to situations in which enforce - ment would be manifestly incompatible with the fun - damental principles of the Ukrainian legal order. For example, in recent years, Ukrainian courts have faced a growing number of arbitration-related cases involving sanctions and public policy. This is reflected in the Supreme Court’s Judgment in case No 824/157/23 dated 15 January 2026, where the Supreme Court refused recognition and enforcement of an award on public policy grounds, as it found that the underlying suretyship agreement had been issued in circumstances suggesting an attempt to circumvent Ukrainian sanctions imposed on persons connected with the Russian Federation. The Supreme Court held that recognition and enforcement of the award would be contrary to Ukrainian public policy, emphasising that courts must address public policy concerns ex officio . Notably, the public policy test in relation to sanctioned parties has evolved since 2014. 13. Miscellaneous 13.1 Class Action or Group Arbitration Ukrainian law does not recognise class action arbi - tration or group arbitration proceedings as separate procedural mechanisms.
lation into Ukrainian must also be filed. In practice, notarisation of an arbitration agreement concluded by electronic means may pose difficulties. The court shall, within five days of the application’s acceptance, notify the respondent and invite it to submit objections within one month. As a general rule, an award set aside at the seat of arbitration will not be enforced in Ukraine, since such setting aside constitutes grounds for refusal of recog - nition and enforcement in Ukraine. Should the Kyiv Court of Appeal find that the compe - tent court in the seat of arbitration handles the case on setting aside of the arbitral award, the recognition and enforcement of which is sought in Ukraine, the Court is entitled to suspend such an application until the court decision rendered upon setting aside of the award becomes effective. Article 79 of the Law of Ukraine “On Private Inter - national Law” grants foreign states the benefit of absolute jurisdictional immunity. As a rule, they are immune from legal proceedings before Ukrainian courts, interim measures (including the attachment of assets) and the enforcement of judgments, unless the foreign state has expressly consented to such meas - ures or an applicable international treaty or Ukrainian legislation provides otherwise. At the same time, the Supreme Court, in its Judgment in case No 796/165/2018 dated 25 January 2019, rec - ognised that a state’s consent to arbitration under a bilateral investment treaty may constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity, extending to interim measures and to the recognition and enforcement of the result - ing arbitral award. The Supreme Court allowed recog - nition and enforcement of an investment treaty award against the Russian Federation. Furthermore, in a more recent practice since 2022 in the context of Russia’s armed aggression against Ukraine, the Supreme Court has departed from the traditional doctrine of sovereign immunity. It has held that Russia cannot invoke sovereign immunity in pro - ceedings seeking compensation for damage caused by its acts of aggression, thereby allowing Ukrainian courts to exercise jurisdiction over such claims.
1116 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook