Ruling of Kyiv Court of Appeal in the case 824/1/26 dated 23 June 2026

case No. 824/1/26 proceeding No. 22-vk/824/17/2026 judge-rapporteur in the court of second instance R.V. Berezovenko

RULING

IN THE NAME OF UKRAINE

23 June 2026 Kyiv

The Kyiv Court of Appeal, composed of Judge R.V. Berezovenko of the Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases, with the participation of the secretary S.R. Shchavlinskyi, having considered in an open court session the question of compliance with the requirements of the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal of 19 May 2026 leaving without progress the application of INFORMATION_1) filed by its representative, attorney PERSON_1, for recognition and grant of leave to compulsorily enforce the award of the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry of 14 February 2025 in case No. 178/2024 upon the claim of INFORMATION_1) against INFORMATION_2 for the recovery from the respondent of INFORMATION_3 of debt under the Agreement on Settlement of Claims under supply contract NUMBER_1, concluded by the parties on INFORMATION_4,

E S T A B L I S H E D:

In December 2025, the Kyiv Court of Appeal received the application of INFORMATION_1) filed by attorney PERSON_1. for recognition and grant of leave to compulsorily enforce the award of the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry of 14 February 2025 in case No. 178/2024 upon the claim of INFORMATION_1) against INFORMATION_2 for the recovery of debt, in which the representative requested:

- to recognise the award of the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry of 14 February 2025 in case No. 178/2024;

- to grant leave to compulsorily enforce the said award in the territory of Ukraine;

- to issue a writ of execution for the compulsory enforcement of the award of the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry of 14 February 2025 in case No. 178/2024.

On 14 January 2026, by a ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal, the application of INFORMATION_1 filed by its representative, attorney PERSON_1, for recognition and grant of leave to compulsorily enforce the award of the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry of 14 February 2025 was left without progress.

On 20 January 2026, the Kyiv Court of Appeal received an application of the applicant's representative in compliance with the court's ruling of 14 January 2026.

On 25 February 2026, the Kyiv Court of Appeal received an objection to the application from the representative of INFORMATION_2, PERSON_2

By a ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal of 4 March 2026, the case was scheduled for hearing.

On 28 April 2026, the representative of INFORMATION_2, PERSON_2., filed a motion to return without consideration the application of INFORMATION_1) filed by its representative, attorney PERSON_1, for recognition and grant of leave to compulsorily enforce the award of the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry of 14 February 2025, on the basis of Article 476(6) of the CPC of Ukraine.

At the same time, having examined the case file, the court concluded that, when applying to the court with the said application, the attorney had attached a photocopy of a copy of the arbitration agreement, which is neither the original nor a notarised copy within the meaning of the provisions of the legislation in force. In addition, the attached apostille does not evidence a proper translation of the arbitration agreement itself, since it does not contain identification of what the “document “A”” is.

Accordingly, the court established that the said documents evidence the non-compliance of the filed application with the requirements of Article 476(4)(2) of the CPC of Ukraine.

Thus, guided by Article 187(11) of the CPC of Ukraine, the court concluded that a ruling leaving the application without progress should be issued in order for the applicant to remedy the deficiencies, since the application had been filed without complying with the requirements of Article 476 of the CPC of Ukraine.

In view of the foregoing, by a ruling of 19 May 2026 the court of appeal left without progress the application of INFORMATION_1) filed by its representative, attorney PERSON_1, for recognition and grant of leave to compulsorily enforce the award of the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry of 14 February 2025 in case No. 178/2024, granting a time limit of five days, starting from 19 May 2026, to remedy the deficiencies, namely to submit the original or a notarised copy of the arbitration agreement.

In response to the said ruling, on 25 May 2026 the representative of INFORMATION_1), attorney PERSON_1, filed an application on remedying the deficiencies, in which she stated that she was submitting to the court a notarised copy of the agreement of INFORMATION_4, certified by a notary in accordance with the legislation of the State of Israel.

The court scheduled a court session in order to establish the circumstances regarding compliance with the requirements of the court's ruling of 19 May 2026, which set a time limit of five days, starting from 19 May 2026, to remedy the deficiencies.

On 27 May 2026, via the “Electronic Court” system, the representative of INFORMATION_2, PERSON_2., filed a motion to return without consideration the application of INFORMATION_1) filed by its representative, attorney PERSON_1, for recognition and grant of leave to compulsorily enforce the award of the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry of 14 February 2025, since the applicant had not complied with the requirements of the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal of 19 May 2026.

On 29 May 2026, via the “Electronic Court” system, the representative of INFORMATION_2, PERSON_2., filed a motion to return the application of INFORMATION_1) filed by its representative, attorney PERSON_1, for recognition and grant of leave to compulsorily enforce the award of the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry of 14 February 2025, on the basis of Article 185(5) of the CPC of Ukraine.

On 23 June 2026, objections were received from the representative of INFORMATION_1), attorney PERSON_1, to the motion of INFORMATION_2 to return the application, in which she disagreed that the submitted documents were not proper and considered that they could not constitute grounds for returning the application.

In addition, in these objections the applicant's representative requested that additional evidence be admitted, namely:

- a letter of explanation from notary PERSON_3 of 21 May 2026 with an apostille and a translation into Ukrainian;

- a copy of the notarised Agreement on Settlement of Claims under supply contracts NUMBER_2 and NUMBER_3 of INFORMATION_4 with an apostille and a translation into Ukrainian of 21 May 2026.

At the court session, the applicant's representative stated that, at the time when the ruling leaving the application without progress had to be complied with, the documents were in the territory of the State of Israel. Moreover, immediately after the documents were received and brought into conformity, they were submitted to the court.

At the court session, the representatives of INFORMATION_2 objected to the admission of the new evidence and to its acceptance as compliance with the requirements of the ruling leaving the application without progress, since the court's ruling had set a clear time limit for its compliance, which expired on 25 May 2026, yet the party did not submit the documents in time. In addition, the applicant did not request an extension of that time limit.

By a procedural ruling recorded in the minutes, the court left without consideration the motion of the applicant's representative filed on 23 June 2026 concerning the admission of new evidence, since it was filed after the expiry of the five-day time limit set by the court, and no motion for its extension/renewal had been made.

Regarding compliance with the requirements of the ruling leaving the application without progress, at the court session the applicant's representative indicated that all proper documents complying with the CPC of Ukraine had been submitted.

At the court session, the representative of INFORMATION_2, PERSON_2., stated that, as at 25 May 2026, the applicant had not submitted a notarised apostille. In addition, he drew attention to the absence of evidence of the applicant's legal personality, and therefore such application must be returned without consideration.

The representative of INFORMATION_2, PERSON_4, supported the arguments of the other representative.

Having heard the opinion of the participants in the case and having analysed the submitted documents, the court reached the following conclusions.

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 474 of the CPC of Ukraine, an award of an international commercial arbitration (if its seat is outside Ukraine), irrespective of the country in which it was made, is recognised and enforced in Ukraine if its recognition and enforcement is provided for by an international treaty the binding nature of which has been consented to by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, or on the principle of reciprocity.

Where the recognition and enforcement of an award of an international commercial arbitration depends on the principle of reciprocity, it is deemed to exist unless otherwise proven.

Article 476 of the CPC of Ukraine provides that an application for recognition and grant of leave to enforce an award of an international commercial arbitration shall be filed in writing and must be signed by the person in whose favour the award of the international commercial arbitration was made, or by its representative.

The application for recognition and grant of leave to enforce an award of an international commercial arbitration must state:

1) the name of the court with which the application is filed;

2) the name (if any) and composition of the international commercial arbitration that made the award under which the writ of execution is to be issued; 3) the names of the participants in the arbitral proceedings (their representatives), their place of residence (stay) or location;

4) the date and place of the making of the award by the international commercial arbitration;

5) the date of receipt of the award of the international commercial arbitration by the person who filed the application;

6) the applicant's request for issuance of a writ of execution for the compulsory enforcement of the award of the international commercial arbitration.

The following shall be attached to the application for recognition and grant of leave to enforce an award of an international commercial arbitration: 1) the original of the duly authenticated arbitral award or a notarised copy of such award; 2) the original of the arbitration agreement or a notarised copy of such agreement; 3) a document confirming payment of the court fee; 4) copies of the application for recognition and grant of leave to enforce the award of the international commercial arbitration according to the number of participants in the court proceedings, except where such application is filed in electronic form via an electronic cabinet. Where the application is filed in electronic form via an electronic cabinet, evidence of sending its copy to the other participants in the case shall be attached to it, taking into account the provisions of Article 43 of this Code; 5) a power of attorney or other document confirming the authority of the person to sign the application; 6) a translation, certified in accordance with the legislation, of the documents listed in paragraphs 1-3 and 5 of this part into Ukrainian or into the language provided for by an international treaty the binding nature of which has been consented to by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, if they are drawn up in another language.

Thus, it appears from the documents attached to the application on remedying the deficiencies that the representative attached a package of documents identical to that originally submitted to the court, namely: a certificate with an apostille, and a copy of the Agreement on Settlement of Mutual Claims under Supply Contract NUMBER_5 of INFORMATION_5 and Supply Contract No. NUMBER_2 of INFORMATION_5, which was concluded on INFORMATION_4.

In addition, in confirmation of the propriety of the certified copy, a letter of 21 May 2026 from notary PERSON_3 was attached, who stated that on 2 March 2025 he had certified a copy of the document “Agreement NUMBER_4 of INFORMATION_4 on Settlement of Mutual Claims under Supply Contract NUMBER_5 of INFORMATION_5 and Supply Contract No. NUMBER_2 of INFORMATION_5”.

At the same time, having analysed the submitted documents, the court established that the applicant had submitted identical documents relating to Agreement NUMBER_4 of INFORMATION_4 on Settlement of Mutual Claims under Supply Contract NUMBER_5 of INFORMATION_5 and Supply Contract No. NUMBER_2 of INFORMATION_5, which indicates that the applicant's side did not comply with the court's ruling. These documents do not indicate their proper notarial execution, since the notary's certification of the document states that document “A” is a true copy of the said agreement.

Accordingly, the court considers that the applicant did not comply with the requirements of the court's ruling of 19 May 2026 leaving the application without progress, since the submitted documents do not evidence that the document is a duly certified copy of Agreement NUMBER_4 of INFORMATION_4 on Settlement of Mutual Claims under Supply Contract NUMBER_5 of INFORMATION_5 and Supply Contract No. NUMBER_2 of INFORMATION_5 certified on the basis of the original document.

The court draws attention to the fact that the notary did not clearly state that the said Agreement was certified on the basis of the original document, but certified only that it is a copy of the agreement of INFORMATION_4 without any identification of the document.

In addition, in complying with the requirements of the ruling within the time limit set by the court, the applicant's representative did not provide the court with the original of the Agreement in order to confirm that the party has the said document. Nor did the applicant submit a notarised Agreement certified under Ukrainian legislation on the basis of the original Agreement, which would evidence compliance with the requirements of Article 476 of the CPC of Ukraine.

It is additionally noteworthy that, during the court session held on 19 May 2026, the representative of INFORMATION_2 asserted that the said documents had already been the subject of consideration by the Kyiv Court of Appeal, which by a ruling of 19 December 2025 in case No. 824/121/25 had returned the application without consideration.

The applicant's representative confirmed these arguments and indicated that the documents submitted in the present case had been the subject of consideration in case No. 824/121/25, but noted that the ground for returning the application had been the requirements of Article 476(6) of the CPC of Ukraine.

Thus, Article 476(6) of the CPC of Ukraine provides that, where an application for recognition and grant of leave to enforce an award of an international commercial arbitration is filed in electronic form, the documents specified in paragraphs 1 and 2 of part four of this Article may be submitted in copies, but the applicant must submit such documents to the court before the commencement of the court hearing of the said application. If the said documents are not submitted, the application is returned without consideration, for which the court issues a corresponding ruling.

At the same time, the court is critical of the said arguments of the applicant regarding the grounds for returning the application that was considered by a different composition of the court, since it appears from an analysis of the court decision of the Kyiv Court of Appeal of 19 December 2025 in case No. 824/121/25, published in the Unified State Register of Court Decisions, that the court concluded that the application should be returned, inter alia, due to the failure to submit the original of the arbitration agreement on settlement of mutual claims containing the arbitration clause, or a notarised copy of the agreement.

Thus, the foregoing confirms that the applicant has again applied to the court with an identical package of documents that do not comply with the requirements of Article 476 of the CPC of Ukraine.

The court is also critical of the attached notary's letter dated 21 May 2026, since this evidence in no way confirms the certification of the Agreement on the basis of the original document and does not alter the documents or the data indicated by the notary upon their certification, and therefore the court does not accept it.

Thus, Article 476(5) of the CPC of Ukraine provides that the provisions of Article 185 of this Code apply to an application for recognition and grant of leave to enforce an award of an international commercial arbitration filed without complying with the requirements set out in this Article.

Pursuant to Article 185(1) of the CPC of Ukraine, a judge who has established that a statement of claim was filed without complying with the requirements set out in Articles 175 and 177 of this Code shall, within five days from the date of receipt of the statement of claim by the court, issue a ruling leaving the statement of claim without progress.

According to Article 187(11) of the CPC of Ukraine, a judge who has established, after the opening of proceedings in a case, that a statement of claim was filed without complying with the requirements set out in Articles 175 and 177 of this Code shall, no later than the following day, issue a ruling stating the grounds for leaving the claim without progress, notify the claimant thereof and grant the claimant a time limit to remedy the deficiencies, which may not exceed five days from the date of service of the ruling on the claimant.

In view of the established circumstances, the court considers that, by virtue of the requirements of Articles 185 and 476 of the CPC of Ukraine, the applicant did not comply, within the time limit set by the court, with the requirements of the court's ruling of 19 May 2026, on the grounds stated above.

Accordingly, the court considers that the said application is to be left without consideration due to the failure to remedy the deficiencies identified in the court's ruling of 19 May 2026.

Pursuant to Article 187(12) of the CPC of Ukraine, if the claimant has remedied the deficiencies of the statement of claim within the time limit set by the court, the court continues the consideration of the case, for which it issues a ruling no later than the day following the day of receipt of information on the remedying of the deficiencies

According to Article 187(13) of the CPC of Ukraine, if the claimant has not remedied the deficiencies of the statement of claim within the time limit set by the court, the statement of claim is left without consideration

Pursuant to Article 257(1)(8) of the CPC of Ukraine, the court issues a ruling leaving a claim without consideration if the proceedings in the case were opened on an application filed without complying with the requirements set out in Articles 175 and 177 of this Code.

Thus, guided by analogy of law on the basis of Article 10(9) of the CPC of Ukraine, and applying the above provisions, the court concluded that the application should be left without consideration.

Accordingly, the assertions of the representatives of INFORMATION_2 regarding non-compliance with the requirements of the court's ruling of 19 May 2026 have been partially confirmed.

Guided by Article 10(9) and Articles 185, 187 and 476, the court of appeal

RULED:

To leave without consideration the application of INFORMATION_1) filed by its representative, attorney PERSON_1, for recognition and grant of leave to compulsorily enforce the award of the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry of 14 February 2025 in case No. 178/2024 upon the claim of INFORMATION_1) against INFORMATION_2 for the recovery from the respondent of INFORMATION_3 of debt under the Agreement on Settlement of Claims under supply contract NUMBER_1, concluded by the parties on INFORMATION_4.

The ruling enters into legal force from the moment of its signing by the judge and may be appealed to the Supreme Court within thirty days in the cases provided for by Article 389 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine.

The full text of the ruling was drawn up on 30 June 2026.

Judge R.V. Berezovenko