Legislative Updates
ADOPTED LAWS
According to the database of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, no new laws were adopted last week.
REGISTERED DRAFT LAWS
According to the database of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, no new draft laws of potential interest to
investors and business owners in Ukraine were registered last week.
Judicial Practice (Key Cases of the Week)
- Ruling of the Supreme Court of Ukraine (Commercial Cassation Court)
Dated 11 November 2025 Case No. 911/591/25
Issue:
The statutory exemption from court fees applicable to claims filed against the aggressor state does not extend to cases brought against commercial entities, even if such entities are affiliated with, replace, or complement the aggressor state.
Outcome:
LLC “Rik-9” filed a claim with the Commercial Court of Kyiv Region against PJSC Gazprom, LLC Gazprom Capital, and Gazprom International Limited seeking recovery of UAH 46,680,616.74 (equivalent to USD 1,276,521.84 as of the date of the judgment of 7 June 2023 in Case No. 11/2396/22) for property damage, based on a prior court decision. The claim sought joint and several liability of the Russian Federation and the above-mentioned corporate defendants. Under Clause 22, Part 1, Article 5 of the Law of Ukraine “On Court Fees”, plaintiffs are exempt from paying court fees in all court instances in cases brought against the aggressor state — the Russian Federation — for compensation of property and/or moral damage caused by the temporary occupation of Ukrainian territory, armed aggression, or armed conflict, including violations of property rights. The Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the lower courts that this exemption does not apply in the present case. The Court emphasized that the statutory exemption is strictly limited to claims filed against the aggressor state itself and does not extend to claims against commercial entities, regardless of whether they are affiliated with, substitute, or complement the aggressor state. Since the plaintiff identified commercial entities as defendants (rather than exclusively the aggressor state), there were no legal grounds to exempt the plaintiff from paying the court fee. The wording of the statute does not provide for such an exemption in these circumstances.
Why it matters:
This ruling confirms the obligation of plaintiffs to pay court fees in claims brought against legal entities of the Russian Federation for damages caused by armed aggression. This obligation applies even where the aggressor state is named as a co-defendant. The decisive factor is the presence among the defendants of parties other than the aggressor state itself. - Ruling of the Supreme Court of Ukraine. Second Judicial Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court
Dated 1 December 2025 Case No. 354/419/25
Issue:
The requirement to deposit the value of a land plot with the court when filing a claim for its recovery in favor of the state may be applied only after the court has determined that the acquirer acted in good faith. The obligation to deposit funds into the court’s deposit account cannot serve as grounds for leaving a claim without consideration at the preparatory stage, as the defendant’s status as a good-faith acquirer must be established following consideration of the case on the merits.
Outcome:
A prosecutor filed a claim seeking recovery of a land plot, owned by the defendant under title, in favor of the state. On 9 April 2025, the Law of Ukraine “On Amendments to the Civil Code of Ukraine Aimed at Strengthening the Protection of the Rights of Good-Faith Acquirers” dated 12 March 2025 entered into force. This law introduced amendments, inter alia, to Articles 388, 390, and 391 of the Civil Code of Ukraine and Articles 177, 185, and 265 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine. Under the amended legislation, when granting a claim by a state authority, local self-government body, or prosecutor for the recovery of immovable property from a good-faith acquirer in favor of the state or a territorial community, the court must simultaneously decide on compensation of the property’s value to the good-faith acquirer. The court may order recovery of immovable property only subject to prior payment of the property’s value by the claimant into the court’s deposit account. Compensation is paid from the court deposit without requiring the good-faith acquirer to file a separate claim. For these purposes, the property value is determined based on a lawful valuation effective as of the date the claim is filed. The Law also provides for retroactive application of these compensation rules to cases in which, as of the effective date of the Law, the court of first instance had not yet issued a decision on recovery of property from a good-faith acquirer. The obligation to make a prior deposit of the property’s value is a matter of substantive law, specifically under Article 390(5) of the Civil Code of Ukraine, and applies exclusively to claims against good-faith acquirers. Where a claim is brought against a bad-faith acquirer, this provision does not apply. In the present case, the prosecutor explicitly argued that the defendant was a bad-faith acquirer. It was alleged, inter alia, that at the time of acquisition the land plot formed part of a forest area, was artificially separated by a road, occupied by forest plantations, and covered with long-standing coniferous vegetation. Given the obvious and objective characteristics of forest land, the defendant either knew or, exercising reasonable diligence, should have known that the land had been unlawfully removed from state ownership. Accordingly, since the claim was based on alleged bad faith, the Supreme Court held that Article 390(5) of the Civil Code does not apply. The issue of whether the acquirer acted in good or bad faith may only be resolved after examination of evidence at the merits stage.
Why it matters:
This ruling is significant for disputes involving the recovery of property from its possessors. The Supreme Court clearly distinguishes between claims against bad-faith acquirers and claims against good- faith acquirers. This distinction is critical for attorneys representing property holders, as an incorrect legal qualification at the stage of formulating the legal position may lead to procedural and substantive errors. - Ruling of the Supreme Court of Ukraine (Commercial Cassation Court)
Dated 19 November 2025 Case No. 924/389/25
Issue:
An arbitration clause that contains only a general reference to dispute resolution by arbitration under the legislation of the seller’s country — without specifying a particular arbitral institution, its rules, the seat of arbitration, or other procedural elements — is unenforceable. In such circumstances, priority in resolving the dispute belongs to the commercial court as a judicial authority, rather than to an undefined arbitral tribunal of the seller’s country.
Outcome:
On 19 November 2021, ALPER KITALARARASI TASIMACILIK LIMITED SIRKETI and LLC “Zdorovo Company” entered into Contract No. 19/11/21, which, inter alia, provided that:- all disputes arising out of or in connection with the contract shall, where possible, be resolved through negotiations between the parties; failing agreement, the dispute shall, to the exclusion of jurisdiction of state courts, be resolved by arbitration in accordance with the legislation of the seller’s country (Clause 10.1);
- the arbitral award must be reasoned and indicate the composition of the arbitral tribunal, the time and place of issuance of the award, as well as the allocation of arbitration costs (Clause 10.2);
- the arbitral award shall be final and binding on both parties (Clause 10.3).
The 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards establishes a framework for the enforcement of arbitral agreements and awards based on a presumption of their validity and autonomy (Article II(1)). This presumption may be rebutted only on limited grounds. Under Article 226(1)(7) of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine, a court must leave a claim without consideration if the parties have concluded an arbitration agreement and the defendant timely objects to court jurisdiction, unless the court finds that such agreement is invalid, has lost effect, or is unenforceable. The appellate court found the arbitration clause unenforceable because the contract did not allow determination of the competent arbitral tribunal, the procedure for its formation, or the rules governing the arbitration proceedings. Paragraph 113 of the UNCITRAL Secretariat Guide on the New York Convention notes that courts have recognized arbitration agreements as unenforceable where they are “pathological,” primarily in cases where:
(i) the clause is drafted in an unclear manner and lacks sufficient guidance to initiate arbitration
proceedings; or (ii) the arbitration institution designated in the clause does not exist.
At the same time, courts may adopt a pro-arbitration approach by interpreting ambiguous or
inconsistent arbitration clauses in a manner that upholds the parties’ intention to resolve disputes through arbitration. Minor errors or inaccuracies in the naming of arbitral institutions may therefore be interpreted in favor of arbitration, subject to the court’s discretion and the specific circumstances of the case. In the present case, however, the arbitration clause in Clause 10.1 of the Contract was deemed unenforceable. Accordingly, jurisdiction properly rested with the Commercial Court of Khmelnytskyi Region, rather than with an undefined arbitral tribunal of the seller’s country.
Why it matters:
This ruling underscores the critical importance of clear and comprehensive drafting of arbitration clauses in commercial contracts. Where an arbitration agreement lacks sufficient specificity and is therefore unenforceable, disputes will be resolved by Ukrainian state courts.
Business & Market Legal Developments
Ukraine to Adopt an Updated Labour Code
The Government of Ukraine has approved a draft Labour Code of Ukraine, marking the launch of a
comprehensive labour market reform. Ukraine’s labour market is still governed by the Labour Code of 1971. Since then, the structure of the economy, employment models, and the needs of both employers and employees have changed significantly. The new Labour Code takes these developments into account and establishes clear and modern rules for employment relations.
What will change?
- Clear definition of employment relationships
The Code establishes eight statutory criteria for identifying employment relationships. This is expected to reduce legal uncertainty and help bring employment out of the shadow economy. Preliminary estimates of labour market de-shadowing amount to UAH 43 billion per year. - More flexible employment contracts
The number of types of employment contracts increases from six to nine. The Code clearly regulates modern forms of work, including remote work, home-based work, and flexible (non-fixed) working hours. Employees will also be allowed to conclude multiple types of employment contracts with the same employer. - Digitalisation of employment relations
Electronic documents will have the same legal effect as paper documents in employment relations. - Transparent minimum wage setting mechanism
The Code introduces a transparent mechanism for determining both monthly and hourly minimum wages, aligned with EU standards. The minimum wage threshold will be set as a percentage of the average salary, as determined by the Government. - Flexible working arrangements for employees with children
The Code guarantees the right to flexible working arrangements (including remote and home-based work) and expands parental rights. In particular, both parents will be entitled to up to two months of parental leave for childcare. - Labour inspection reform
A risk-based approach to labour inspections will be introduced. - More employment opportunities for young people
The Code introduces a specific mechanism to safely combine education with first employment, namely an apprenticeship employment contract. The adoption of the new Labour Code is also an important step in Ukraine’s European integration. The document provides for the implementation of more than 30 EU directives, regulations, and ILO conventions.
Made in Ukraine” Policy: New Rules Effective from January 2026
All support programs for Ukrainian manufacturers that were in place last year will continue in 2026 without exception. In addition, the following changes will take effect as of 1 January 2026:
New Localisation Threshold
From 1 January 2026, the localisation requirement applicable to public procurement will increase from 25% to 30%. This increase is part of a planned schedule established by legislation back in 2022. At that time, the initial localisation threshold was set at 10% and has been increasing by 5 percentage points annually, until it reaches 40%. From 1 January, manufacturers of goods subject to localisation requirements will be able to upload updated product data to the relevant registry and confirm a 30% localisation level. In 2025, the Government approved initiatives from enterprises in several additional industries to join the localisation framework. As a result, manufacturers in the light industry, electrical equipment, elevators, tractors, large-diameter pipes, and metal structures will also receive priority in public procurement. The gradual increase in localisation requirements is intended to create additional demand for Ukrainian-made goods from public purchasers and to stimulate investment in domestic production, both of finished products and components.
War Risk Insurance
As of 1 January 2026, Ukraine will introduce a mechanism for insurance of property against war-related risks, administered by the Export Credit Agency (ECA). The mechanism will operate in two formats:
Direct compensation for damage caused by hostile attacks
This format applies to enterprises operating in frontline areas of the following regions: Dnipropetrovsk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, Mykolaiv, Odesa, Poltava, Sumy, Kharkiv, Kherson, and Chernihiv regions. The insurance premium is 0.5% of the estimated potential loss, with a state compensation cap of up to UAH 10 million.
Compensation of insurance premiums
This mechanism will apply nationwide and is aimed at making commercial war risk insurance more affordable. For property insurance policies covering war-related risks, the state will compensate part of the insurance premium charged by the insurer. The compensation cap per insurance contract is up to UAH 1 million.
Ministry of Economy and FAO Launch a Program to Provide Modular Grain Storage Facilities to
Ukrainian Farmers
Starting 5 January, applications will open in the State Agrarian Register (DAR) for agricultural producers seeking to receive modular grain storage facilities. The initiative is being implemented by the FAO in cooperation with the Ministry of Economy, Environment and Agriculture of Ukraine, with financial support from the Government of Canada. Eligible participants include agricultural producers from the Poltava, Rivne, Volyn, and Zhytomyr regions who are registered in the State Agrarian Register and cultivate between 200 and 1,000 hectares of actively used agricultural land in the specified regions. Selected participants will receive modular grain storage units with a capacity of 1,000 tonnes each, enabling total storage capacity of up to 100,000 tonnes of grain under the program. The new FAO program aims to support the stability of Ukraine’s agricultural sector by expanding access to modern grain storage infrastructure, reducing post-harvest losses, and lowering logistics costs. Producers of rye, as well as women farmers, are identified as priority beneficiaries.
The Bureau of Economic Security Initiates a Public Discussion on Pre-Trial Settlement of
Economic Crimes
The Head of the Bureau of Economic Security of Ukraine (BES), Oleksandr Tsyvinskyi, has initiated a public discussion on a new mechanism that would allow businesses to avoid lengthy court proceedings and criminal prosecution. Similar mechanisms are already used by law enforcement agencies in a number of other countries.
He outlined this initiative in an opinion column for Censor.Net. “The model is simple and fair. If a company acknowledges the fact of non-payment, reimburses the unpaid taxes and penalties, and makes an additional contribution—for example, to the Armed Forces of Ukraine Fund—the proceedings are closed upon reaching a tax compromise. This is not an amnesty; it is an economic restoration of justice,” Oleksandr Tsyvinskyi explained. The Head of the BES emphasized that this approach provides the state with a rapid financial result, offers businesses a legal and transparent exit, and sends a clear signal to society that honesty is finally more beneficial than corruption.
