Ukraine

Following the Russian full-scale invasion in 2022, Ukraine remains a vital forum for international legal work. Foreign companies continue to invest across a broad range of sectors in Ukraine, driven by evolving economic conditions, state priorities, and global trends in infrastructure, defence, finance, and IT. Foreign clients are increasingly engaging with Ukrainian counterparties, and as a result, the volume of cross-border disputes has grown rapidly. Most disputes stem from disrupted supply chains, force majeure claims, or investment losses. As Ukraine continues legal reforms and strengthens its judiciary, it is vital to understand the procedural and strategic landscape of arising disputes. For international law firms engaged in assisting clients in Ukraine, navigating disputes with Ukrainian counterparties or in Ukraine requires a nuanced understanding of three critical aspects: jurisdiction, dispute resolution strategy, and enforcement mechanisms. A well-calibrated approach to these factors is crucial for effectively protecting clients’ interests in an evolving legal and geopolitical environment. Jurisdictional Considerations Ukrainian law allows parties to select dispute resolution forums: the parties are free to refer disputes arising out of their contracts to local courts, foreign courts, or international arbitration, if such a dispute is not attributed to the exclusive jurisdiction of Ukrainian courts. As a rule, in the absence of an arbitration clause in a contract, Ukrainian courts have jurisdiction over disputes where the debtor is domiciled or has a place of business or assets in Ukraine. This principle ensures access to justice for both domestic and foreign claimants when the opposing party has a tangible presence within the country. In addition to general jurisdiction, Ukrainian law provides for the exclusive jurisdiction in certain categories of disputes. These include claims related to real estate located in Ukraine, corporate disputes involving Ukrainian legal entities, bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, public procurement disputes, cases involving Ukrainian public authorities. In these cases, only Ukrainian courts are competent to hear the case, regardless of any alternative dispute resolution clauses agreed in contracts. If the subject of a contract is not attributed to the exclusive jurisdiction of Ukrainian courts, parties are free to include an arbitration agreement referring resolution of disputes arising from the contract to arbitration. In this case, if either party attempts to resort to the national court, the latter will most definitely refuse to consider the dispute given the valid arbitration agreement. Another tricky issue may be a hybrid dispute resolution clause offering the parties flexibility in choosing an authority to consider disputes arising out of or in connection with the contract. Such ambiguity may result in duplication of arbitration and litigation proceedings, multiple challenges of jurisdiction, and further challenges of an arbitral award or a court decision. Practical Tip: “Specify exclusive jurisdiction clearly; hybrid clauses may create procedural risks in Ukraine.” Litigation in Ukrainian Courts Since the onset of the full-scale Russian invasion in 2022, Ukraine’s judiciary has faced unprecedented challenges. Nonetheless, the court system has demonstrated remarkable resilience and adaptability in the face of new reality. During the announced martial law and active hostilities in several regions, Ukrainian courts continue to function, even in territories that have been recently de-occupied and are close to the front-line. The courts offer handling court hearings via video-conferences for the security of the parties. Ukraine’s judicial system operates on a three-tier structure, comprising local courts, courts of appeal, and courts of cassation. Business-related disputes fall under the jurisdiction of commercial courts, which possess specialized competence in matters of corporate, contractual, and trade law. In parallel, administrative courts serve as a venue to challenge actions or decisions by Ukrainian public authorities, such as tax, customs, or licensing bodies. For foreign companies and international law firms, litigation in Ukraine offers significant advantages, especially when Ukrainian counterparties or assets in Ukraine are involved. Our law firm provides tailored litigation strategies for foreign clients navigating Ukrainian courts. Ukraine’s courts recognize the principle of international cooperation, and Ukraine’s court decisions can be enforced in other jurisdictions under applicable international treaties or reciprocity principles. In litigation proceedings brought before the Ukrainian courts, foreign companies benefit from equal procedural rights with Ukrainian entities, as guaranteed under domestic legislation. This parity fosters an environment conducive to fair judicial treatment: The Commercial Procedure Code sets relatively short timelines for case hearings and decisions. According to the President of the Commercial Cassation Court, the average timeframe for handling a commercial dispute from filing to final cassation decision is approximately eight months. Ukrainian courts have the authority to grant interim measures, such as asset freezes or injunctions, providing vital protection during the litigation process. These remedies can be crucial in preserving the claimant’s position in urgent or high-value disputes. Court judgments are enforceable, with enforcement carried out either by the State Enforcement Service or licensed private enforcement officers, offering flexibility and broader reach. In practice, courts are increasingly open to remote hearings, especially in light of martial law and digitalization reforms, which have improved access to justice across regions. Despite the growing reliability of Ukrainian litigation, foreign businesses should remain aware of several practical and systemic challenges: Judicial delays persist, particularly in complex or politically sensitive cases. Heavy caseloads and staff shortages in some regions contribute to slower proceedings. Procedural abuses, such as intentional delays, non-appearance of parties, or tactical filings, are not uncommon and may prolong dispute resolution. Enforcement obstacles remain, especially when debtors engage in asset dissipation, concealment, or exploit procedural loopholes to avoid compliance. Procedural formalities, including translation of documents into the Ukrainian language, apostille/consular legalization, and notarization of documents, can pose administrative and cost burdens for foreign litigants. A lack of case law consistency, particularly among regional courts, may lead to unpredictable outcomes, even in seemingly straightforward matters. Damages awards in Ukrainian courts are often conservative compared to those granted in common law jurisdictions. While successful parties may seek recovery of legal costs, reimbursement is frequently partial, and foreign companies may not recover the full amount of their litigation expenses. While litigation in Ukrainian courts offers a viable and increasingly modernized forum for dispute resolution, foreign companies should assess the specific context of the dispute, including the location of assets, governing law, and urgency of interim relief, before proceeding. In many cases, Ukrainian litigation remains an effective mechanism, particularly when paired with proactive enforcement strategies and sound legal representation. Case Snapshot Ilyashev & Partners successfully represented a foreign bank in a series of high-profile legal proceedings, including litigation and arbitration proceedings in Ukraine. The firm played a key role in complex multi-jurisdictional asset recovery efforts related to the embezzlement case against former chairman. The team provided full legal support in arbitration proceedings and Ukrainian commercial and civil courts, including obtaining interim measures, enforcement of foreign judgements, arbitral awards and coordination with international legal proceedings. International Arbitration in Ukraine As was mentioned above, Ukrainian courts have a pro-arbitration approach and respect the parties’ choice of a dispute resolution clause if validly included in the main contract. The arbitration legislation in Ukraine is represented by the Law of Ukraine “On International Commercial Arbitration”, the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, and the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine. Ukrainian courts enforce foreign arbitral awards, uphold valid arbitration clauses, and stay proceedings in favour of arbitration. While enforcing international arbitration awards, Ukrainian courts do not interfere with the merits of the case and consider the enforceability of the award itself and whether there are grounds for refusal under Article V of the New York Convention. The ICAC at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Ukrainian Maritime Arbitration Commission (the UMAC) are the primary and most reputable arbitral institutions in Ukraine, established under the Law of Ukraine “On International Commercial Arbitration”. The other most preferred forums for arbitration include ICC, SCC, LCIA, VIAC, and ICSID. Ukrainian court practice is increasingly aligned with global arbitration standards, and the Ukrainian legislation is being regularly amended to meet the practical needs in international arbitration. Case snapshot Ilyashev & Partners Law Firm successfully defended the interests of a foreign company that is part of one of the French largest retail chains in a commercial fraud case considered by the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ICAC at the UCCI). Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments and Awards Ukraine is a party to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 and the European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration 1961, and has a supportive arbitration legal framework. Ukrainian law also permits the recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments and international arbitral awards, subject to specific legal conditions. These include the principle of reciprocity (in the absence of multilateral and bilateral treaties), proper notification of the parties to the proceedings, and compliance with Ukrainian public policy standards. Applications for recognition are reviewed by Ukrainian courts in separate proceedings, which may involve a detailed assessment of formal criteria. Ukraine operates a dual enforcement system: once a domestic or recognized foreign judgment or award becomes enforceable, it may be executed either through the State Enforcement Service or licensed private enforcement officers. The emergence of private enforcement since 2017 has added flexibility, competition, and efficiency to the enforcement process, particularly in high-value or time-sensitive matters. One of the landmark developments in Ukrainian legal practice was achieved by Ilyashev & Partners, as one of the first law firms in Ukraine to successfully secure recognition of English court orders and judgments in Ukraine. These cases helped shape a positive judicial precedent and contributed to the evolving enforcement landscape, particularly in common law-related matters. However, despite recent amendments to Ukrainian legislation to facilitate the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards and court judgments, practical enforcement challenges remain. In particular, the enforcement proceedings may be affected by the fraudulent action of debtors attempting to conceal assets, initiate delaying tactics, or use procedural loopholes. Therefore, careful pre-enforcement asset analysis and strategic planning may be a key to effective debt recovery. Asset Tracing and Interim Measures Freezing orders and tracing assets in support of arbitration or litigation proceedings in Ukraine are legally feasible and procedurally well-established. Ukrainian courts may grant interim measures, such as asset seizures or freezing bank accounts, both prior to the filing of a claim, at the stage of the ongoing proceeding or after a final decision is issued. Prompt actions and precision are crucial in this case, especially in high-value disputes at stake. Quite often, however, the allocation of the assets to be seized under the interim measures granted by the court is the responsibility of the creditor’s legal counsel. Ukrainian legal counsels and state authorities have a wide range of instruments to effectively trace the debtor’s assets and to procure their preservation till the final resolution of the dispute. Normally, state registers, open sources, and independent analytical systems are used to allocate concealed assets. Local counsel coordinate access to property, corporate, and bank registries, and engage enforcement officers to secure assets. Courts require evidence of urgency and risk of dissipation to grant protective orders. Working with Ukrainian Counsel In cross-border disputes involving Ukrainian parties or assets, partnering with competent local counsel is not optional; it is essential for a positive outcome of the case. Whether the dispute proceeds before Ukrainian courts or relates to enforcement or interim measures, Ukrainian lawyers ensure compliance with domestic procedural rules, manage court filings, organize translation and legalization of the documents, and appear in person on the client’s behalf. Foreign law firms benefit from the deep familiarity a local counsel has with current court practice, procedural formalities and nuances, regional enforcement patterns, especially in complex commercial or high-value disputes. Ukrainian legal counsel can also ease and facilitate the preparation and analysis of documentary evidence. To ensure effective cooperation, a foreign client should prioritize: Early conflict checks – the Ukrainian legal market is relatively concentrated, especially in high-stakes matters, so the availability of local legal counsel should be verified as early as possible. Clear communication protocols – agree in advance on working languages, communication tools (email, secure cloud), and internal escalation chains. Defined response times and deadlines – court-driven timelines in Ukraine can be short, especially in interim relief proceedings, so coordination must be efficient. Project management – consider assigning a single point of contact within each team; this avoids duplication and streamlines document review and approvals. While many Ukrainian law firms operate at international standards, differences in document formatting, client onboarding (e.g., KYC/AML compliance), and billing should be harmonized at the outset. Ukrainian lawyers are typically highly responsive and well-adapted to working with multinational clients, particularly those active in arbitration or investment disputes. Ukraine provides an arbitration-friendly dispute resolution landscape that is procedurally sophisticated and increasingly transparent. With well-drafted contracts, strategic planning, and reliable local legal counsel, foreign law firms can effectively guide their clients through disputes involving Ukrainian elements. Authors: Marina Riashchenko, Attorney at Law, Counsel at Ilyashev & Partners Law Firm Vyacheslav Sytyi, Attorney at Law, Counsel at Ilyashev & Partners Law Firm Ilyashev & Partners Law Firm provides comprehensive legal support to foreign law firms and international companies involved in disputes in Ukraine. Our expertise covers cross-border litigation, enforcement of foreign judgments, international arbitration, asset tracing, and interim measures in Ukraine. Find out more at Ilyashev & Partners Law Firm or reach out to the authors for further insights: Marina Riashchenko and Vyacheslav Sytyi.

In 2021, an Information Security Strategy was introduced in Ukraine, endorsed by the Presidential Decree No. 685/2021, and the Center for Countering Disinformation was established under the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine (NSDC). These steps were a response to unprecedented hybrid threats, in particular information attacks accompanying military aggression.  In the context of a full-scale war with an aggressor state, information security and sanctions has become an integral part of Ukraine’s national security. As a result, the sanctions policy not only protects the national interests of the state, but has also become one of the key factors in international trade, banking, and M&A. Ukrainian Sanctions Framework: Key Features  The Law of Ukraine “On Sanctions” defines special economic and other restrictive measures as a mechanism for protecting sovereignty, territorial integrity, national security, and the rights of citizens. Decisions on sanctions are taken by the NSDC and are enacted by the Decree of the President of Ukraine. Claims for the recognition of the illegality of the Decree of the President of Ukraine imposing sanctions against a specific person may be filed directly with the Supreme Court. An exception is the special procedure for applying the sanction of asset recovery to the state revenue, which is carried out through the High Anti-Corruption Court. Sanctions may be applied to protect the national interests, national security, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, counter terrorist activities, as well as to prevent violations, restore violated rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of citizens of Ukraine, society and the state. The list of sanctions that may be imposed in Ukraine is quite broad, ranging from freezing assets and suspension of trade operations to confiscation of assets in favor of the state, and in practice sanctions are imposed for years or even decades. Currently, Ukrainian legislation defines 31 sanctions that can be imposed on a person, and the key point is that the mechanism for removing a person from the sanctions list is not implemented in practice. At the same time, it should be noted that the sanctions mechanism in Ukraine operates in a mode adapted to extraordinary circumstances. To date, no subordinate legislation has been adopted detailing the procedure for applying sanctions, in particular concerning the assessment of evidence or communication with the person against whom the NSDC intends to apply preventive measures in the form of sanctions. Different listing criteria, legal standards, or duration For comparison, it is worth referring to the European Union’s sanctions policy. In this case, restrictive measures are imposed by the Council of the European Union and may be reviewed by the Court of Justice of the European Union if a person believes their rights have been violated. The decisive factor is respect for human rights to an effective remedy, as well as the requirements of transparency, reasonableness, and sufficiency of the evidence base. The Court of Justice of the European Union has a long-standing practice of imposing on EU institutions the obligation to prove the existence of specific facts justifying the inclusion of a person on a sanctions list. This was highlighted in its recent judgment dated 4 June 2025 in the case of Boguslayev v. Council of the European Union (сase T-161/23), where the Court of Justice of the European Union overturned the EU Council’s decision to extend the sanctions imposed on Ukrainian citizen Vyacheslav Boguslayev. The judgment in case T‑161/23 (Boguslayev v. Council) is indicative in the context of approaches to the application of sanctions, since in this case the Court explicitly stated that the Council of the European Union had not provided any new evidence or assessment of Boguslayev’s conduct during the period justifying the extension of the sanctions, and had not carried out a proper reassessment of the circumstances. The Court emphasized that decisions on restrictive measures must be based on evidence existing at the time of their adoption, and not just on general references to the situation in Ukraine or in the media. The Court stressed that the decision must be based on facts, not on general assertions or media reports. This approach demonstrates the priority of the presumption of innocence, the right to be heard, and legal certainty. The application of sanctions against a person with reference to circumstances from media sources, i.e., articles, publication authors’ opinions, etc., the reliability of which should be subject to objective skepticism, is quite controversial. In Ukraine the Supreme Court, as a court of first instance in cases challenging sanction, usually rejects claims, emphasizing preventive nature of sanctions in the context of the political situation in Ukraine and the need to protect the national interests of the state during martial law. Thus, a number of decisions of the Cassation Administrative Court within the Supreme Court state that the Decrees of the President of Ukraine on sanctions are not subject to evaluation on the merits of establishing the grounds, circumstances for imposing sanctions, or the evidence, and the review is limited only to formal compliance with the procedure (e.g., the presence of proposals from the Security Service of Ukraine or the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine). Insight: “A party removed from the EU list may remain subject to sanctions in Ukraine for years.” Despite the challenges facing Ukraine, there are still attempts to improve standards of proof. On 20 February 2025, the Cassation Administrative Court within the Supreme Court for the first time upheld a claim regarding personal sanctions in case No. 990/176/23 (Louis-Michel Duray), recognizing Presidential Decree No. 82/2023 as unlawful. The Supreme Court noted that the defendants had not proven the actual participation of the individual in actions threatening national security. The Supreme Court’s decision has not yet entered into force, and the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court has accepted for consideration the appeal of the President of Ukraine against the decision of the Cassation Administrative Court within the Supreme Court dated 10 February 2025 in case No. 990/176/23. In general, Ukrainian procedural law does not provide for a cassation review of court decisions on sanction cases; therefore, further only the European Court of Human Rights can determine whether the Ukrainian court respects the human right to effective and fair judicial protection in this category of cases, or not. Compliance Strategy for International Firms As of June 2025, the Unified State Register of Court Decisions contains approximately 460 claims challenging sanctions imposed during martial law in Ukraine. In practice, a person subject to sanctions in Ukraine is not notified of the grounds for imposing sanctions, and no regulatory act of Ukraine provides for the right to familiarize oneself with such grounds. At the same time, the sanctions register is publicly available, and any person may check whether a counterparty is on the sanctions list and what sanctions have been imposed on it before deciding on future cooperation. Ilyashev & Partners Law Firm provides professional legal advice on sanctions compliance in Ukraine and strongly recommends that international companies carefully verify Ukrainian counterparties through the national sanctions list to mitigate sanctions-related legal risks. Furthermore, the legislator plans to introduce criminal liability for violating sanctions (special economic and other restrictive measures). Working with Ukrainian Partners or Subsidiaries It should be admitted that Ukraine’s sanctions policy is being implemented in conditions of full-scale aggression, constant threats to state independence, and numerous manifestations of internal collaboration. This requires flexible and sometimes rapid management decisions that cannot always be implemented in compliance with all peacetime procedures. Ukraine’s sanctions policy is a response to a deep security crisis and an example of how the state uses public law instruments to counter external and internal threats. In summary, sanctions are not only a political instrument but also a legal reality with direct consequences for contracts, banking operations, and judicial processes. Therefore, Ilyashev & Partners Law Firm recommends that international and Ukrainian clients: Carefully check counterparties in the public sanctions register, avoiding transactions with persons subject to restrictive measures. Use sanctions clauses in contracts – the right to terminate or suspend obligations. Take into account the risk of reverse sanctions: cooperation with persons subject to sanctions in other jurisdictions (in particular, the Russian Federation) may be grounds for the application of Ukrainian sanctions. Expect the criminalization of sanctions regime violations, which is currently under consideration by the legislator. Author: Valeriia Gudiy, Partner at Ilyashev & Partners Law Firm Ilyashev & Partners Law Firm is a leading provider of legal services in Ukraine with a proven track record in sanctions compliance, challenging sanctions, and advising international companies on regulatory risks in Ukraine. To learn more, please visit the Ilyashev & Partners Law Firm website or contact the author directly: Valeriia Gudiy.

Ilyashev & Partners successfully represented Latvian pharmaceutical company Kalceks AS in a high-profile dispute concerning the invalidation of Ukrainian trademark certificates for the anesthetic trademarks “Promedol” and “Промедол”  registered by Pharmaceutical Group Zdorovia LLC. Kalceks AS is widely known as the manufacturer of anesthetic products under the trademark “Promedol Kalceks Промедол Калцекс”, protected by International Registration No. 1320345 dated 20 June 2016 for goods in Classes 1 and 5 of the Nice Classification. In 2016, Kalceks obtained Ukrainian registration certificate No. UA/15324/01/01 for the medicinal product “Promedol Kalceks”, solution for injection, 20 mg/ml” (Order of the Ministry of Health of Ukraine No. 787 dated 28 July 2016). The dispute arose when Pharmaceutical Group Zdorovia LLC began marketing similar products in Ukraine under the trademarks “Promedol-ZN” and “Promedol Промедол”, protected by Ukrainian certificates No. 129188 and No. 227836. In the same year, the company filed a lawsuit with the Commercial Court of Kyiv seeking to invalidate Kalceks’ international trademark registration, claiming the trademarks were identical apart from the additional elements “ZN” and “Kalceks”. The case was further complicated when the Ukrainian claimant requested interim measures to prohibit the State Customs Service of Ukraine from including Kalceks’ international trademark in the Customs Register of IP Rights. Such a restriction could have resulted in Kalceks’ products being treated as counterfeit, leading to delays at customs and potential reputational and financial damage. To protect its rights, Kalceks engaged Ilyashev & Partners. The firm’s Intellectual Property team filed a counterclaim, arguing that Kalceks’ trademarks included both the INN (International Nonproprietary Name) “Promedol” and the manufacturer's brand name. Accordingly, Kalceks had a legitimate basis for use, whereas the Ukrainian company's attempts to block imports constituted an infringement of Kalceks’ legal rights and interests. The Commercial Court of Kyiv upheld the arguments presented by Ilyashev & Partners, ruling that “Промедол” and “Promedol” are generic names included in the WHO’s INN list. Such terms cannot serve as standalone elements in trademarks or product names, as this would result in unfair competition and a potential market monopoly. The court also found that the “ZN” component lacked distinctiveness. On 8 April 2019, the court ruled in favor of Kalceks and invalidated the Ukrainian trademark certificates. Pharmaceutical Group Zdorovia LLC appealed the decision, but on 6 May 2025, the Supreme Court of Ukraine, acting through the Commercial Cassation Court, upheld the first-instance judgment. The Court confirmed the invalidation of certificates No. 129188 and No. 227836 for “Promedol-ZN” and “Promedol Промедол”. By the time the case reached the higher courts, ownership of the trademarks had been transferred to a third party – Farmeks Hrup LLC, which had become the legal successor and new right holder. The Supreme Court further ordered the Ukrainian National Office for Intellectual Property and Innovations to record the invalidation of the two certificates in the State Register of Trademark Certificates of Ukraine and publish the information in the official bulletin Promyslova Vlasnist (Industrial Property). The Supreme Court’s decision is final and not subject to appeal. The case was handled by Mikhail Ilyashev, Managing Partner; Oleh Trokhymchuk, Counsel and Co-Head of Dispute Resolution; Andriy Lytvyn, Head of the Kharkiv Office and Attorney at Law; and Dmytro Lazebnyi, Attorney at Law.

Ilyashev & Partners Law Firm successfully represented a Ukrainian retail company in criminal proceedings concerning allegations of tax evasion exceeding EUR 1 million. A fashion accessories retail company was accused of large-scale tax evasion through the use of sole proprietorships for conducting economic activities during 2021-2023, as well as the possible smuggling of goods into Ukraine. The allegations were based on an analytical report by the Economic Security Bureau of Ukraine. To protect its interests, the Ukrainian retailer turned to Ilyashev & Partners Law Firm for legal assistance. The Criminal Law team at Ilyashev & Partners provided comprehensive support during the pre-trial investigation stage, including: representing and advising company management and employees during searches; legal assistance during interrogations; preparation of complaints and motions for the return of seized property and lifting of asset freezes; representation of the company in court. Thanks to the effective defence strategy implemented by Ilyashev & Partners’ attorneys, the Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Kyiv lifted the seizure of all assets, and the criminal proceedings were closed due to the absence of corpus delicti. The case was handled by Volodymyr Adonin, Attorney at Law at Ilyashev & Partners.