Ukraine

Sayenko Kharenko has acted as Ukrainian legal counsel to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) in connection with a EUR 13 million loan to the city of Kryvyi Rih aimed at supporting the operation of its municipal public transport system during 2026 – 2027. The loan will provide liquidity support to the Municipal Trolleybus Company and the High-Speed Tram Company, ensuring the uninterrupted delivery of essential public transport services in the city. The funds are intended to cover operating costs, including salaries, electricity and infrastructure maintenance, and support the implementation of ongoing EBRD-financed projects. The EBRD’s loan is backed by a 40 per cent guarantee from the Government of Spain, structured on equal terms with the EBRD’s financing. EBRD is Ukraine’s largest institutional investor, having substantially increased its investment in the country since Russia launched a full-scale invasion in 2022. Since the start of the war, the Bank has deployed billions of euros to support the real economy, with a focus on energy security, private-sector resilience and critical infrastructure. Sayenko Kharenko’s team included Igor Lozenko, Oles Trachuk and Karina Zadorozhna. https://sk.ua/sayenko-kharenko-advises-ebrd-on-eur-13-million-loan-to-the-city-of-kryvyi-rih/

Sayenko Kharenko has acted as Ukrainian legal counsel to the European Fund for Southeast Europe (EFSE) on providing, through its Ukraine Sub-Fund (USF), a 5-year loan of EUR 20 million equivalent in Ukrainian hryvnia to JSC “State Export-Import Bank of Ukraine” (Ukreximbank), Ukraine’s state-owned bank. The loan is aimed at expanding access to finance for Ukrainian micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) operating under wartime conditions, enabling Ukreximbank to scale up its lending in support of business continuity, investment and job preservation. EFSE is an impact investment fund to drive economic development and prosperity in Southeast Europe and the Caucasus. Through its two sub-funds – the Regional Sub-Fund (RSF) and the Ukraine Sub-Fund (USF) – EFSE provides tailored financial solutions to foster entrepreneurship, strengthen financial inclusion, and support local economies. With the investment, EFSE USF reaffirms its commitment to expanding access to finance to MSMEs across the country in wartime conditions. Ukreximbank is Ukraine’s state bank and a leading financier of businesses and critical sectors, channelling capital into projects that deliver a strategic impact on the country’s recovery and long-term growth. The Bank is steadily expanding cooperation with international financial institutions and leading export credit agencies, providing guarantees and project finance that reduce risk and help Ukrainian companies access global partners and markets. Sayenko Kharenko’s team included Igor Lozenko, Oles Trachuk and Danylo Dashko. https://sk.ua/sayenko-kharenko-advises-the-efse-on-eur-20-million-financing-to-ukreximbank-to-support-ukrainian-msmes/

Maintaining up-to-date information on ultimate beneficial owners (the “UBOs”) and the ownership structure in the Unified State Register of Legal Entities, Individual Entrepreneurs and Public Organisations (the “USR”) is an obligation of every legal entity in Ukraine. At the same time, since June 2025, the Ministry of Justice has introduced a number of technical clarifications and new procedures regulating how state authorities interact with legal entities in cases where discrepancies in information on the ownership structure and/or UBOs are identified. Orders No. 1172/5 and No. 1173/5 have detailed the notification procedure, response timelines, and document format, but have not changed the obligation itself to submit information on the ownership structure and UBOs. Therefore, the main rules remain unchanged.   Ownership structure: new requirements In April 2024, the Regulation on the form and content of the ownership structure, approved by Order of the Ministry of Justice dated 2 April 2024 No. 161, was updated (it enters into force 90 days after the termination of martial law in Ukraine). According to the new version, the ownership structure of a legal entity must be submitted in the form of a table in accordance with the established template. It must reflect all persons who directly or indirectly own the legal entity (individually or jointly with others), as well as persons who have the ability to exercise significant or decisive influence over its management or activities, even in the absence of formal ownership. The application of the new form will allow the ownership structure to be submitted electronically to the USR and will ensure automated verification of information by software. At the same time, after the provisions of the new version enter into force, the ownership structure information of a legal entity previously submitted to the state registrar is deemed complete for six months, provided that no changes have occurred in the ownership structure and no errors or inaccuracies were made in the previously submitted information.   Who must update information on UBOs and the ownership structure Legal entities are required to update information in the USR where the following circumstances exist: the legal entity was registered before the entry into force of the Law of Ukraine “On Prevention and Counteraction to Legalisation (Laundering) of Criminal Proceeds, Terrorist Financing and Financing of Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction”, i.e., before 11 July 2022, and its owner is an individual; and the owner of the legal entity is another legal entity, or there is at least one legal entity among its founders, except for special entities to which the requirement to disclose UBOs does not apply. Such exceptions include, in particular, political parties, trade unions, bar associations, state-owned enterprises, public joint-stock companies that meet EU disclosure requirements, and other forms provided for by law.   Deadlines for updating information The general deadline for submitting updated information is within 30 calendar days from the date of changes in the ownership structure and/or UBO information. If a legal entity was registered before the entry into force of the rules requiring submission of UBO information, it must submit such information within six months from the date of approval of the ownership structure form and methodology, but not earlier than 90 days after the termination of martial law.   Actions of state authorities, the state registrar, and the bank in case of discrepancies Legal entities in Ukraine are subject to scrutiny by several entities authorised to identify inaccurate or incomplete information on UBOs and ownership structure. In particular, state authorities, law enforcement agencies, banks, and other primary financial monitoring entities (auditors, notaries, lawyers, accountants, etc.), upon identifying discrepancies, are obliged to send a relevant notification to the Ministry of Justice within 10 working days. Thereafter: the Ministry of Justice informs the state registrar and the State Financial Monitoring Service; the state registrar enters a note in the USR on possible inaccuracy and sends the legal entity a request to provide explanations within 3 working days; and if no response is provided within 30 working days, the Ministry of Justice instructs that information on the UBO be excluded from the USR. This procedure, taking into account the new orders, has been supplemented with technical clarifications: requests may be sent not only by post but also electronically; if the first notification is returned as undelivered, it must be resent; the initiator of the request will receive an official notification of the verification result. A bank, as a primary financial monitoring entity, in the event of a note on inaccuracy or failure to provide UBO information, is obliged to terminate servicing the client, which results in blocking access to accounts and financial transactions until correct information is provided.   Obligations of a legal entity in case of discrepancies A legal entity that has received a request from the state registrar must: provide written explanations and/or supporting documents within 10 working days; submit an updated application in Form 2 and the ownership structure prepared in accordance with the current Regulation on the form and content of the ownership structure; provide copies of documents identifying the UBO; and provide a document confirming registration in the country of residence (in the case of non-resident founders). When updating an ownership structure that includes foreign legal entities, practical difficulties may arise, especially if the structure is complex, covers several ownership levels and is registered in different jurisdictions. When updating data in the USR, it should be taken into account that extracts, statements from commercial, banking, or court registers, etc., confirming the registration of a non-resident legal entity in its country of location, must be prepared in accordance with the requirements of Ukrainian legislation. In particular, such documents must be issued no earlier than one month prior to the date of their submission for state registration of changes. An identity document of a UBO who is a non-resident must be valid as of the date the documents are submitted for state registration. A copy of such a document must be notarised no earlier than 90 calendar days before the submission date of the relevant document package. Documents issued in accordance with the legislation of a foreign state must be legalised (consular legalisation or apostille) in accordance with the established procedure, unless otherwise provided by international treaties.   Liability for failure to submit or for late updating of information In case of failure to comply with the obligation to update the ownership structure and/or UBO information: a fine is imposed on the legal entity – from UAH 17,000 to UAH 340,000, and on the authorised person (for example, the director) – from UAH 17,000 to UAH 51,000; the bank terminates servicing the client. This means that the legal entity loses access to accounts, cannot carry out any payment transactions, settle with counterparties, or receive funds. For many companies, this may completely block business operations and indicate a decline in business capacity; and the company loses reputational reliability and may be excluded from participation in public procurement procedures or cooperation with counterparties. During the period of martial law, the running of deadlines for submitting information to the USR is suspended. Penalties for failure to submit information on the ownership structure and UBOs are also not applied for three months after the end of martial law; however, the bank may already terminate servicing the client. Thus, legal entities must carefully monitor the accuracy of data in the USR, update information on UBOs and ownership structure in a timely manner, and, upon receiving a request from the state registrar, act within the prescribed time limits. Ignoring these requirements may lead not only to legal sanctions but also to a complete suspension of business operations due to the inability to carry out banking transactions, as well as to serious reputational and operational risks.   Authors: Oleksandr Melnyk, Partner, Head of Corporate and M&A practice at GOLAW, Attorney at law Oleksandr Shevchuk, Associate at Corporate and M&A practice at GOLAW Vladyslava Zaichko, Junior Associate at Corporate and M&A practice at GOLAW

In today’s environment of active international relations, the issue of recognizing and enforcing foreign court decisions in Ukraine has become particularly relevant. The growing number of international disputes involving Ukrainian companies and citizens in the areas of business, family, inheritance, and property law necessitates the creation of effective mechanisms for enforcing foreign court decisions within Ukraine. The possibility of recognizing and enforcing foreign court decisions in Ukraine is enshrined in Article 81 of the Law of Ukraine “On Private International Law” and the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters. The procedure for recognizing and enforcing such judgments is outlined in Section IX of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine (hereinafter—the CPC of Ukraine), which establishes the principles, conditions, and requirements for the recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments in Ukraine in accordance with international standards. Below, we outline the main steps for successfully navigating the procedure for the recognition and enforcement of a foreign court judgment in Ukraine, as well as common mistakes applicants often make.   Key Steps and Common Mistakes in the Procedure for Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Court Decisions in Ukraine It is worth noting that foreign court decisions are subject to recognition and enforcement in Ukraine if there is an international treaty, the binding nature of which has been approved by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, or on the basis of the principle of reciprocity. Therefore, the first practical step before filing a petition with the court for the recognition and enforcement of a foreign court judgment is to verify the existence of an international treaty between Ukraine and the state whose court issued the relevant judgment, governing the recognition and enforcement of court judgments. However, the absence of an international treaty does not in itself preclude the recognition and enforcement of a court decision if the application of this principle is provided for by national law. That is, in the absence of an international treaty, the process of recognizing and enforcing a foreign court’s decision is carried out in accordance with the principle of reciprocity.  Thus, Article 462 of the Code of Civil Procedure of Ukraine establishes that if the recognition and enforcement of a foreign court’s decision depends on the principle of reciprocity, it is presumed to exist unless proven otherwise. The second important step is determining the competent court to which the relevant motion is filed, as well as complying with the established procedure and deadlines for its submission. The procedure for such an application is not very complicated: the relevant petition is filed with the court along with the necessary attachments, the list of which is specified in Articles 466–472 of the Code of Civil Procedure of Ukraine. If an international treaty, the binding nature of which has been approved by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, establishes a specific list of documents to be submitted, the applicant must follow that list. In the absence of such a treaty or if it does not specify the list of attachments, the following must be attached to the petition: a duly certified copy of the foreign court’s decision; a document confirming that the decision has become final (if this is not stated in the decision itself); a document confirming proper notification of the party that did not participate in the case; a document specifying which part of the judgment is enforceable (if it has been enforced previously); a document confirming the representative’s authority (if the motion is filed by a representative); It is also worth paying attention to practical nuances that often serve as grounds for denying a motion. In particular, a common mistake is failing to properly notify a party to the case of its proceedings, or the lack of sufficient evidence of such notification. If the party against whom a foreign court decision was rendered proves that they were not properly informed about the proceedings abroad or were unable to exercise their right to defense, this may constitute an independent ground for refusing to recognize and enforce the foreign court decision. An equally common ground for refusal is the applicant’s failure to take into account the existence in Ukraine of a court decision that is already in the enforcement stage and was rendered between the same parties and on the same grounds. In such cases, the courts rely on the principle of the inadmissibility of double jeopardy and the principle of legal certainty. In this context, it is worth noting several Supreme Court rulings that reflect current approaches in judicial practice regarding these issues.   Review of Relevant Judicial Practice of the Supreme Court In a ruling of the Civil Cassation Court within the Supreme Court (hereinafter “CCC SC”) dated July 30, 2025, in Case No. 756/7283/23, the issue of compliance with the time limits for filing a petition with the court for recognition of a foreign court’s decision was examined. In June 2023, the applicant filed a motion with the Obolon District Court of Kyiv seeking recognition and authorization for the enforcement of the decision of the District Court of Novo Mesto (Republic of Slovenia) dated January 3, 2020, which became final on February 13, 2020, in Case No. P 229/2016-46 regarding the recovery of funds. By a ruling of the Obolon District Court of Kyiv dated February 21, 2024, the motion was denied, in particular because the debtor does not reside in Ukraine and the judgment is already being enforced in Slovenia, which could lead to double recovery. By a ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeals dated September 24, 2024, the decision of the court of first instance was overturned; however, the motion was also denied—on other grounds. The Court of Appeals reasoned that the applicant filed the motion on June 12, 2023, i.e., outside the three-year period established by Article 463 of the Code of Civil Procedure of Ukraine. The Supreme Court upheld the position of the appellate court and noted that the time limit for submitting a foreign judgment for enforcement is three years from the date it becomes final under national law. Since the judgment in Case No. P 229/2016-46 became final on February 13, 2020, and the applicant filed the motion only on June 12, 2023—that is, after the expiration of the three-year period—this constitutes grounds for denying the motion. Other grounds for granting a motion for permission to enforce a foreign court’s decision were considered by the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court in its ruling of October 22, 2025, in Case No. 308/17585/23. The facts of the case were that the applicant filed a petition with the court seeking recognition and permission to enforce the judgment of the District Court of Humenné (Slovak Republic) dated October 5, 2020, and the order dated February 5, 2021, in case No. 17Cb/26/2020 regarding the recovery of funds from a Ukrainian citizen for failure to fulfill contractual obligations. By a ruling of the Uzhhorod City and District Court of Zakarpattia Oblast dated April 2, 2024, the applicant’s motion was granted. The court found no deficiencies in the form or content of the motion.  By a ruling of the Transcarpathian Court of Appeal dated November 7, 2024, the ruling of the Uzhhorod City and District Court of the Transcarpathian Region dated April 2, 2024, was overturned, and a new court decision was issued, which denied the motion to recognize and grant permission for the enforcement of the court decision of the Slovak Republic. The denial was based on the improper notification of the debtor regarding the proceedings. At the same time, the Supreme Court disagreed with the conclusion of the appellate court, noting that the latter had failed to take into account that, in the event of improper notification by a foreign court regarding the proceedings, procedural law grants a person who did not participate in the court proceedings the opportunity to file appropriate objections to the motion with the court hearing the motion. Thus, the debtor was duly notified and informed of the filing and consideration of the relevant motion, and also had a real opportunity to exercise his procedural rights. This was the basis for the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the appellate court’s position was erroneous and, accordingly, for the reversal of its decision in this part. It is worth separately addressing the categories of cases that most frequently arise in the practice of recognizing and enforcing foreign court decisions in Ukraine, namely regarding the collection of alimony. In this category of cases, the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, in its resolution of January 28, 2026, in Case No. 456/1567/24, issued a legal opinion stating that a motion for permission to enforce a foreign court’s decision may be denied if a decision of a national court already exists and is being enforced between the same parties. In March 2024, the applicant filed a petition with the Stryi City and District Court of Lviv Oblast seeking recognition and permission for the enforcement of the decision of the District Court of Prague dated June 15, 2009, regarding the collection of child support. By a ruling of the Stryi City and District Court of Lviv Oblast dated October 30, 2024, the motion for enforcement of the foreign court’s decision was granted, and permission was granted to collect child support pursuant to the foreign court’s decision. By a ruling of the Lviv Court of Appeals dated September 23, 2025, the decision of the court of first instance was overturned and a new ruling was issued, on the grounds that there were no legal grounds for granting the motion, given the existence of a judgment by a Ukrainian national court ordering the payment of child support. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s position and noted that the existence of a national court decision on the collection of child support, which is already in the enforcement stage, precludes the possibility of granting the motion for permission to enforce a foreign court decision. Otherwise, this would lead to the simultaneous existence of two enforcement documents regarding the recovery of the same amounts from the debtor in favor of the same person. Thus, it can be concluded that when filing a motion for permission to enforce a foreign court’s decision, it is necessary to carefully consider both substantive and procedural nuances. Before filing the motion, it is advisable to thoroughly analyze the circumstances of the case and the available documents, as well as to ensure that the motion is properly drafted in accordance with the requirements regarding its form, content, attachments, and deadlines.   Authors: Anastasia Klian, Head of Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice at GOLAW, Attorney at law; Oleksandra Belyuga, Paralegal at Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice at GOLAW