Search
Ua Eng
Меню

Ukraine: international arbitration during the war

24 Вересня 2025 Oleksiy Filatov, Pavlo Otenko and Myroslava Kalynovska

In summary

In recent years, Ukraine’s legal system and jurisprudence have transformed under martial law, impacting, in particular, international arbitration landscape. Key developments cover arbitration agreement validity, recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards, service of judicial and extrajudicial documents, statutory limitations and other wartime restrictions, as well as adaptive changes of the International Commercial Arbitration Court (ICAC) rules. Despite wartime challenges, the international arbitration framework in Ukraine demonstrates resilience while adapting to new legal, political and economic realities.

Discussion points

  • Sanctions and public policy defences

  • Arbitral award challenge and enforcement

  • Wartime restrictions and moratoriums

  • Service of procedural documents

  • ICAC operational adaptations

Referenced in this article

  • Law of Ukraine ‘On Sanctions’

  • Resolution No. 187 ‘On Ensuring the Protection of National Interests in Future Claims of the State of Ukraine in connection with the Military Aggression of the Russian Federation’

  • Resolution of the National Bank of Ukraine No. 18 ‘On the Operation of the Banking System During the Period of Martial Law’

  • Civil Procedural Code of Ukraine

  • Law of Ukraine ‘On Enforcement Proceedings’

  • ICAC Rules

  • Bill No. 12141

  • Rosneft v Evrostandart-Avtogaz

  • Inkla Trading v Energoatom

  • Stoyanova v Nor-East Agro

Introduction

In 2017, Ukraine considerably improved its legislation supporting international arbitration. That has been followed by developments in jurisprudence, which, in recent years, cumulatively created a rather arbitration-friendly environment.

Since 2022, the ongoing war has had a tremendous impact on Ukraine’s legal landscape. The legal regime of martial law, originally introduced for 30 days starting from 24 February 2022, has been extended several times and is expected to be prolonged for an indefinite period.[1]

This regime, as well as related changes in government policies, triggered a range of developments in legislation, affecting international arbitration, operations of the International Commercial Arbitration Court and the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Ukraine (ICAC), as well as Supreme Court and lower courts’ case law.

Legislation developments

Sanctions

Since 2014, Ukraine has progressively developed its sanctions regime, initially as a response to the annexation of Crimea and Russian unlawful military aggression in Donetsk and Luhansk regions.

The Law of Ukraine ‘On Sanctions’ was enacted in August 2014 (Sanctions Law) and introduced the legal framework for applying sanctions (special economic and other restrictive measures) against foreign businesses and individuals in order to protect the national interests, national security, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, countering terrorist activities, as well as prevent violations and restore violated rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of the Ukrainian citizens, society and the state.

As at mid-2025, Ukraine has imposed sanctions on 11,800 individuals and 8,213 legal entities, making it one of the most active jurisdictions globally in terms of sanctions policy.[2]

The scope of sanctions has been extended by further amendments to the law in 2022 and has included, in particular, expropriation of assets. The expropriations actions by the Ministry of Justice have raised serious concerns among foreign investors, some of whom have responded by initiating investment arbitration proceedings against Ukraine’s actions.[3]

Active sanctions policy influenced Ukrainian jurisprudence on public policy doctrine, particularly in the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. Ukrainian courts have increasingly relied on the public policy exception as a ground for refusing enforcement of awards involving sanctioned parties and transactions. The Supreme Court case law helps to navigate these restrictions and will be discussed in a separate section below.

Statutory restrictions and limitations

Since the introduction of martial law, the Ukrainian parliament and government have enacted new and amended existing laws to adapt to the wartime realities. These developments have included a range of restrictive measures aimed primarily at Russian and related businesses, which, however, have had a broader impact.

Resolution 187

The first set of limitations was established by Ukrainian Cabinet of Ministers’ Resolution No. 187 ‘On Ensuring the Protection of National Interests in Future Claims of the State of Ukraine in connection with the Military Aggression of the Russian Federation’ (Resolution 187), adopted on 3 March 2022.

Resolution 187, inter alia, prohibits the fulfilment of any obligations (monetary and non-monetary), where the creditors are, in particular, the Russian Federation as a state, Russian citizens or legal entities that are residents of the Russian Federation or legal entities registered in Ukraine or abroad with Russian involvement (participation) as ultimate beneficial owners or holders of 10 per cent or more of shares in such entities.

In its jurisprudence, the Supreme Court has elaborated on the legal implications of the moratorium imposed by the government and its effect on the recognition of creditors' claims within bankruptcy proceedings. The Court clarified how the moratorium restricts the ability of certain creditors to assert their claims, particularly considering national security considerations and the legal status of the creditor entities. The following sections of this article will explore this interpretation in greater detail.

Resolution 18

The second set of limitations was laid out by Resolution of the National Bank of Ukraine No. 18 ‘On the Operation of the Banking System During the Period of Martial Law’, adopted on 24 February 2022 with subsequent amendments (Resolution 18). Resolution 18 imposes restrictions on Ukrainian banks, including:

  • using Russian and Belarusian currencies;

  • conducting operations where one of the parties is a legal entity or individual located in the Russian Federation or the Republic of Belarus;

  • fulfilling obligations to legal entities or individuals located in the Russian Federation or the Republic of Belarus; and

  • conducting cross-border currency transfers from Ukraine or transferring funds to correspondent accounts of non-resident banks in hryvnia or foreign currency from resident banks.

The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence has also clarified the legal nature and effect of restrictions introduced by the National Bank of Ukraine during martial law and emphasised that such regulatory measures, including prohibitions on crediting funds from these sources, are binding on banks and do not constitute a violation of clients’ civil rights, which will be discussed in detail further below.

Service of documents

Ukraine is a party to the Hague Convention of 15 November 1965 on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (Hague Service Convention), which governs the cross-border delivery of legal documents to individuals and entities residing abroad. The Hague Service Convention serves as the primary legal instrument for transmitting such documents internationally.

In March 2022, Ukraine declared its temporary inability to fully guarantee its obligations under the Hague Service Convention due to the Russian invasion.[4]

Subsequently, in November 2023, a new declaration clarified that Hague Service Convention continues to be fully implemented across Ukraine, except for areas currently affected by active hostilities or temporarily occupied by the Russian Federation, where the delivery of documents cannot be assured because of armed aggression and the imposition of martial law. The declaration was accompanied by a regularly updated List of Occupied Territories published by the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine.[5]

As of today, Ukraine continues to fulfil its obligations under the Hague Service Convention in full, excluding only those territories where the functioning of legal institutions is impeded by war or occupation.

Deadlines for setting aside arbitral awards

A notable development in Ukraine’s arbitration law is the amendment to article 454(6) of the Civil Procedural Code of Ukraine (CPC). Previously, article 454(6) of the CPC strictly prohibited any application to set aside an arbitral award after the expiration of a three-month period. Article 454(7) of the CPC reinforced this time bar by requiring that any application submitted after the deadline shall be automatically returned by the court, with no discretion to renew the missed procedural deadline.

However, this rigid rule was challenged before the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, which found it unconstitutional. In response, the Ukrainian legislature passed Law No. 3200-IX, dated 29 June 2023, amending provisions of article 454(7) of the CPC. Under the revised text, courts now have discretion to restore the missed deadline for filing an annulment application if the applicant can demonstrate that the delay was justified. This change brings Ukraine in line with international standards by balancing procedural strictness with fairness and further enhances the credibility of its arbitration-friendly legal framework.

Amendments to enforcement law

Another significant development in response to the ongoing war relates to the enforcement proceedings. Particularly, amendments to the Law on Enforcement Proceedings have provided that enforcement must be suspended for the duration of martial law if the debtor is classified as an enterprise of the defence-industrial complex.

The debtors benefiting from this exception must meet the criteria set out in Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 101 and include enterprises that develop, produce, modernise, repair or dispose of military goods, as well as provide services to the security and defence sector or involved in Ukraine’s military-technical cooperation with foreign states.

To benefit from the suspension, an enterprise must satisfy two cumulative conditions: (1) it must be actively engaged in executing or supporting a state defence contract; and (2) it must be listed in the electronic register of participants of state defence contracting. The list of such enterprises is maintained by the Ministry of Strategic Industries of Ukraine. The list, however, is classified as state secret information, reflecting its national security significance.

This layered legal framework serves as a de facto moratorium on enforcement against Ukraine’s strategically critical defence enterprises – state-owned or private – during wartime. It not only protects key industrial assets from the risk of asset seizures but also ensures the uninterrupted performance of defence contracts crucial to national security.

While the amendments introduced in 2018 laid the groundwork for shielding the defence sector from creditor actions tied to hostile states, the martial law-era provisions now function as a broader protective regime, reinforcing Ukraine’s legal and institutional response to external threats and internal economic stability during the ongoing war.

Bill 12141

In a strategic push to strengthen Ukraine’s role as a venue for resolving cross-border investment disputes, parliament adopted the first reading Bill No. 12141, which proposes a major expansion of the competence of the ICAC. This initiative aims to transform Ukraine into a regional hub for international arbitration, particularly in the context of post-war reconstruction and foreign investment inflows.

The bill proposes key amendments to the Law ‘On International Commercial Arbitration’, allowing the ICAC to hear not only international commercial disputes but also investor–state disputes – even where the investor is Ukrainian or the dispute involves state authorities or intergovernmental organisations. The legislation also broadens the definition of what constitutes an ‘international’ arbitration, allowing cases to proceed under the ICAC jurisdiction if the dispute is materially connected to more than one country – through the place of performance, location of assets or governing law – even if both parties are formally based in Ukraine.

Importantly, the law directs the Cabinet of Ministers to begin naming the ICAC as a designated dispute resolution forum in new or revised bilateral investment treaties, free trade agreements and public–private partnership contracts. It also recommends that state bodies and enterprises include standard arbitration clauses referring to the ICAC in their foreign trade contracts to reduce the legal costs associated with representing the state in foreign venues. The move is explicitly framed as a cost-saving and sovereignty-enhancing measure to shift arbitration proceedings back into the national legal infrastructure.

Supporters of the draft law argue that while institutions such as ICSID, the SCC, LCIA and SIAC have traditionally dominated investor–state arbitration, parties are increasingly seeking faster and more cost-efficient alternatives. By equipping the ICAC with the legislative foundation to hear such disputes, Ukraine aims to align itself with global arbitration trends while simultaneously fostering a more attractive legal environment for foreign investors. If the bill is adopted in full, Ukraine would become one of the few countries in the region to formally enable a national arbitral institution to resolve investment disputes under both domestic and international legal frameworks.[6]

ICAC activities

Despite the ongoing martial law, the ICAC has demonstrated remarkable adaptability to maintain its core dispute resolution functions. The ICAC renewed consideration of all types of cases in the ordinary regime since March 2022,[7] followed by national courts, which resumed operation in May 2022.[8]

The statistics below indicate that in the preceding 2024 year, the ICAC rendered 440 arbitral awards, which is the highest number in the period of 2020–2024.[9]

ICAC Rules amendments

In response to the operational challenges posed by martial law and the broader need for institutional modernisation, the Presidium of the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry approved significant amendments to the ICAC and Ukrainian Maritime Arbitration Commission (UMAC) Rules on 1 July 2022. These reforms marked a pivotal step toward the digital transformation of arbitral proceedings in Ukraine. Most notably, the updated rules formalised the use of electronic communication as the primary method for filing documents and corresponding with tribunals, and simplified procedures for holding oral hearings online.[10]

In 2024, a new series of targeted amendments to the ICAC Rules was issued. A key procedural update addresses the growing number of cases arising from multiple related contracts. The amended rules now explicitly permit the ICAC to consolidate claims from two or more agreements into a single proceeding, provided that the relevant arbitration agreements are compatible and that joint consideration would enhance procedural efficiency and speed.[11] This development aligns with best practices seen in other international arbitral institutions and is expected to significantly reduce the procedural burden in complex, multi-contract disputes.

In response to the increasingly complex environment of cross-border sanctions and ongoing military conflict, the ICAC and the UMAC also adopted a formal Compliance Policy on cases with a sanctioned element. The policy provides procedural clarity for cases involving sanctioned individuals or entities, affirming that the existence of sanctions does not bar access to arbitration. Crucially, the policy commits to equal treatment of parties and upholding all procedural guarantees under the lex arbitri, while encouraging arbitral panels to take all reasonable steps to ensure enforceability of awards.[12]

Case law

After the initial drop in 2022 following the beginning of the full-scale war, the operations of the Ukrainian courts have rather quickly restored to the pre-war standards.

The Supreme Court’s official data shows that in 2024 local courts received more than 1,546,000 claims, applications, complaints, petitions, motions and court orders pending under the rules of civil procedure. In comparison, this figure for 2022 would be significantly lower – around 916,000.[13]

Not only have the courts adopted their operations to the wartime realities, but their jurisprudence is actively developing, addressing newly appearing legal issues as well as long-standing problems. A few judgments from recent years are worth particular attention in the context of international arbitration.

Rosneft v Evrostandart-Avtogaz (Supreme Court, No. 824/138/21, 22 December 2022)

Under Article 459(2)(2) of the CPC, a national court may set aside an arbitral award ex officio only on two grounds: (1) the dispute is non-arbitrable; or (2) the award contravenes the public policy of Ukraine. The Supreme Court judgment in this case confirms that the sanctions policy has now been firmly recognised as an integral component of Ukrainian public policy.

The case concerned recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award rendered by International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Russian Federation (MKAS). The first instance court allowed to recognise and enforce the award in favour of the Russian PJSC Rosneft Oil Company (Rosneft). The defendant appealed this judgment and argued that recognition and enforcement of the MKAS award would breach Ukrainian public policy, since Ukraine imposed sanctions against Rosneft.

Supreme Court decided that sanctions against Rosneft indicated that the enforcement of the MKAS award would violate Ukrainian public order, and referred to the fundamental political interests of the state in ensuring national security, including the safety of people living on its territory.[14]

Importantly, in the past, the Supreme Court had a different approach. For instance, in the Resolution in case No. 824/146/19, dated 19 March 2020, the Court explicitly set out:

[…] even if sanctions were imposed by the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine Decision on the Creditor, this fact could not indicate that the arbitral award providing for the recovery of funds from the debtor would be contrary to the public policy of Ukraine and, accordingly, would lead to a refusal to recognize and enforce it in Ukraine.[15]

The Supreme Court’s resolution in case No. 824/138/21 made a decisive shift in Ukraine's approach to international arbitration, definitively establishing that sanctions imposed under Ukrainian law now constitute an integral component of Ukraine's public policy and provide clear grounds to refuse recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards favouring sanctioned entities.

Inkla Trading v Energoatom (Supreme Court, No. 824/123/22, 26 July 2023)

In this matter, Inkla Trading & Engineering GmbH (Austria) applied for recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award against the State Enterprise National Nuclear Energy Generating Company ‘Energoatom’ (Ukraine), which, in turn, applied for setting aside the award.

Energoatom argued that it was unable to transfer the tribunal-awarded sum due to limitations introduced by Resolution 18 and Resolution 187 (see above). However, the Supreme Court stated that restrictions and limitations introduced by Resolution 18 and Resolution 187 do not affect recognition and enforcement of arbitral award. In particular, the Court stated that Resolution 187 is ‘related to issues that are resolved at the stage of enforcement proceedings and do not relate to the grounds for refusing to recognize and grant permission to enforce an international commercial arbitration award’.

The Court also concluded:

Pursuant to paragraph 14 of the NBU Resolution No. 18, dated 24 February 2022, authorized institutions are prohibited from making cross-border transfers of currency values from Ukraine on behalf of clients, except in cases where they are made on the basis of separate permits (decisions) of the National Bank of Ukraine, which are made on the basis of requests from the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, ministries and other state bodies of Ukraine. Therefore, as of today, the defendant may make a payment (currency transaction) for the products subject to a certain procedure for making such a payment, by obtaining a separate permit from the NBU.[16]

Therefore, the award remained in force, clarifying that martial law currency restrictions and enforcement moratoriums do not constitute grounds for setting aside arbitral awards, explicitly distinguishing between recognition/enforcement stages and actual execution of the award, particularly making payments thereunder. The Court emphasised that NBU Resolution 18 on currency transfer restrictions and CMU Resolution 187 on enforcement moratorium against Russian-connected entities are procedural obstacles that arise during enforcement proceedings rather than substantive grounds for award nullification.

Specijalna Oprema Skopje v Ukrspetsexport (Supreme Court, No. 824/87/22, 9 February 2023)

This resolution resolved an appeal from a ruling on enforcement and recognition of the ICAC award in a matter between Specijalna Oprema Skopje - D. O. O. (Northern Macedonia) and a subsidiary of the state-owned company Ukrspetsexport, a Ukrainian defence company, arising from a breach of the international sale of goods contract.

In this matter, Ukrspetsexport alleged public policy defence with reference to its status of a defence-sector enterprise executing urgent orders for the manufacture and repair of military equipment for the needs of the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine.

The first-instance court still granted Specijalna Oprema Skopje the permission to recognise and enforce the award, and the Supreme Court upheld the ruling.

Notwithstanding the recognition and enforcement of the award, the Supreme Court stated that the actual enforcement against defence-sector companies would have to be delayed. The Supreme Court emphasised that:

the debt collection under the ICAC award from a defence industry enterprise during martial law is not a ground for refusing to recognize and enforce this award in Ukraine. The introduction of martial law does not exempt the enterprise from its obligation to fulfil monetary obligations to its counterparties, although the enforcement of such an award is temporarily suspended until the end of martial law.[17]

Moreover, the Court highlighted that the alleged insolvency of a state-owned entity resulting from an arbitral award cannot indicate that such an award violates the Ukrainian public policy.

Hence, the collection of a debt under an arbitral award from a defence industry enterprise during martial law is not a ground for refusing to recognise and enforce such an award in Ukraine, since the imposition of martial law does not relieve defence-sector companies from the obligation to fulfil theirmonetary obligations to their counterparties. At the same time, such an award is temporarily not enforceable until the end of martial law.

Stoyanova v Nor-East Agro (Supreme Court Joint Chamber, No. 911/1766/22, 30 August 2024)

The claimant Stoyanova applied to the Court against Nor-East Agro seeking invalidation of the arbitration clause in a contract. The matter was considered by the Joint Chamber of Supreme Court, its subdivision considering matters whenever harmonisation of jurisprudence requires deviation from previous case law. The Joint Chamber ruled that national courts are entitled to consider the validity of the arbitration agreement (clause):

  • if the party to the contract files a claim to the national court of any state on any issues related to the contract containing an arbitration clause or in respect of which the parties have entered into an arbitration agreement (article 8 of the Law ‘On International Commercial Arbitration’, article 226 (7)(1) and article 231(5)(1) of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine (ComPC));

  • in the procedure of challenging an arbitral award (such dispute is considered by the national court in the state of the place of the arbitral award) (article 34 of the Law ‘On International Commercial Arbitration’, section 8 of the ComPC);

  • when the national court considers the issue of recognition and granting permission for enforcement of the arbitral award (article 36 of the Law ‘On International Commercial Arbitration’, article 478 of the ComPC).[18]

Notably, before this judgment, the ICAC used to suspend the arbitration proceedings when a party challenged the validity of an arbitration agreement in national courts, relying on article 58 of the ICAC Rules.

This resolution clearly restricted the national courts' jurisdiction to consider the validity of arbitration agreements as standalone claims. The Court established that national courts may only examine arbitration agreement validity in three specific situations: when the opposing party initiates court proceedings despite the arbitration clause; during arbitral award challenge procedures; or within recognition and enforcement proceedings.

Conclusions

Since the beginning of the full-scale war in 2022 in Ukraine, the local international arbitration infrastructure has been remarkably resilient. The ICAC moved all filings and hearings online in mid-March 2022 and introduced reserve tribunals so that proceedings could continue even during air raid alerts. As a result, all categories of cases have been heard in the ordinary course since March 2022 and in 2024, the institution delivered 440 awards – the highest annual figure in five years. The national courts followed suit and now process even more civil filings than in the immediate prewar period.

Wartime has also reshaped the substantive law and jurisprudence. Most visibly, the Supreme Court judgment in the Rosneft case confirmed that sanctions are now an integral element of Ukrainian public policy. Hence, any award that benefits a sanctioned person, or is premised on a sanctioned transaction, risks refusal of recognition or enforcement. At the same time, the Supreme Court judgments in the Energoatom and Ukrspetsexport cases draw a crucial distinction between recognition and actual execution. Currency control and the government’s moratorium on payments to Russia-connected entities may delay payment, but they do not justify setting an award aside or refusing to recognise it in Ukraine. In other words, martial law restrictions affect the mechanics of enforcement, not the finality or validity of the award itself.

Procedural law has also evolved. Following a Constitutional Court decision in 2023, parliament amended article 454 of the CPC to allow courts to restore a missed three-month deadline for challenging an award where the applicant shows good reason. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court’s Joint Chamber, in the Stoyanova case, curtailed attempts to litigate arbitration clauses as standalone claims: national courts may now examine the validity of an arbitration agreement only when a party sues despite the clause, in set aside proceedings, or during recognition and enforcement proceedings, thereby reinforcing the kompetenz–kompetenz principle.

The institutional modernisation continues. The amendments adopted in 2022 and 2024 have fully digitalised the ICAC procedure, authorised the consolidation of multi-contract disputes and introduced a formal compliance policy for cases that involve sanctioned parties. Most ambitiously, Draft Law No. 12141 – passed in first reading – would empower the ICAC to hear investor–state disputes and direct future state contracts and investment treaties to name the ICAC as a forum, positioning Ukraine as a regional arbitration hub for postwar reconstruction.

Taken together, these developments preserve the enforceability and credibility of arbitration in Ukraine while adapting it to wartime realities. Parties can still choose Ukraine as a seat with confidence. If Draft No. 12141 is adopted, Ukraine will not only have weathered the storm, but will prove itself as one of the most modern and investment-friendly arbitration regimes in Eastern Europe.

Endnotes

[1] Decree of the President of Ukraine ‘On imposition of martial law’, 24 February 2022, available at: https://www.president.gov.ua/documents/642022-41397.

[2] State sanctions register, available at: https://drs.nsdc.gov.ua/.

[3] For instance, ABH Holdings S.A. filed an ICSID arbitration claim on 29 December 2023, seeking over US$1 billion in compensation under the Belgium–Luxembourg–Ukraine Bilateral Investment Treaty, alleging that Ukraine unlawfully expropriated Sense Bank via sanctions‑based nationalisation, available at: https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/investment-dispute-settlement/cases/1372/abh-v-ukraine.

[4] Declaration of the state of Ukraine, 9 March 2022, available at: https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/status-table/notifications/?csid=351&disp=resdn&utm_.

[5] ibid.

[6] JURLIGA, Article ‘Expansion of the jurisdiction of international arbitration: the relevant committee recommends adopting the draft law as a basis’, available at: https://jurliga.ligazakon.net/news/233917_rozshirennya-kompetents-mzhnarodnogo-arbtrazhu-proflniy-komtet-rekomendu-ukhvaliti-zakonoprokt-za-osnovu.

[7] ICAC 2022 Report, available at: https://icac.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/report_sum_eng_2022_sajt.pdf.

[8] For instance, the official statement of the Commercial court of Dnipropetrovsk region, 1 April 2022, available at https://dp.arbitr.gov.ua/sud5005/pres-centr/news/1266383/ and the official announcement of the Kyiv Court of Appeal, 18 May 2022, available at: https://www.kas.gov.ua/?p=29315.

[9] ICAC Report 2024, available at: https://icac.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/report_eng_2024_sajt.pdf.

[10] ICAC Rules, article 43.

[11] ICAC Rules, article 17.

[12] Compliance Policy of ICAC and the UMAC relating to cases with a sanctioned element, available at: https://icac.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/Rekomendatsiyi-ICAC_Komplayens-polityka_eng.pdf.

[13] Analytical review of the state of civil proceedings in 2022, available at: https://supreme.court.gov.ua /userfiles/media/new_folder_for_uploads/supreme/ogliady/2022_analiz_KCS.pdf. Analytical review of the state of civil proceedings in 2024, available at: https://court.gov.ua/storage/portal/supreme/ogliady/ztv4D67.pdf.

[14] Supreme Court’s Resolution in the case No. 824/138/21, 22 December 2022, available at: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/108262284.

[15] Supreme Court Resolution in the case No. 824/146/19, 19 March 2020, available at: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/88749651.

[16] Supreme Court, Resolution in the case No. 824/123/22 as of 26 July 2023, available at: https://verdictum-pro.ligazakon.net/document/112545830.

[17] Supreme Court, Resolution in the case No. 824/87/22 as of 9 February 2023, available at: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/108959745.

[18] Supreme Court Joint Chamber, Resolution in the case No. 911/1766/22 as of 30 August 2024, paragraph 74 (b), available at: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/121725661.

Prepared exclusively for The European Arbitration Review 2026.