Ruling of the Supreme Court of Ukraine in the case 824/139/25 dated 6 May 2026

RULING

6 May 2026 Kyiv case No. 824/139/25 proceeding No. 61-3842av26

The Supreme Court, composed of a panel of judges of the Third Judicial Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court: S. Yu. Martiev (judge-rapporteur), V. M. Ihnatenko, S. O. Karpenko, having considered the motion of the representative of INFORMATION_1, PERSON_1, for the case to be heard on the application of INFORMATION_1 for recognition and grant of leave to enforce the award of the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry of 26 March 2024 in case No. 425/2023 upon the claim of INFORMATION_1 against a legal entity established under the laws of INFORMATION_2 for the recovery of debt, upon the appeal of the legal entity established under the laws of INFORMATION_2 against the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal of 26 February 2026, rendered by Judge L. D. Polyvach, in a closed court session,

ESTABLISHED:

In December 2025, INFORMATION_1 applied to the Kyiv Court of Appeal with an application for recognition and grant of leave to enforce the award of the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry of 26 March 2024 in case No. 425/2023 upon the claim of INFORMATION_1 against a legal entity established under the laws of INFORMATION_2, in which the applicant asked for a writ of execution to be issued for its compulsory enforcement and for court costs to be recovered.

By a ruling of 26 February 2026, the Kyiv Court of Appeal partially granted the application of INFORMATION_1 for recognition and grant of leave to enforce the award of the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry of 26 March 2024 in case No. 425/2023 upon the claim of INFORMATION_1 against a legal entity established under the laws of INFORMATION_2 for the recovery of debt.

It granted leave to enforce the award of the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry of 26 March 2024 in case No. 425/2023 upon the claim of INFORMATION_1 against a legal entity established under the laws of INFORMATION_2 for the recovery of debt.

It issued a writ of execution for the enforcement of the award of the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry of 26 March 2024 in case No. 425/2023 upon the claim of INFORMATION_1 against a legal entity established under the laws of INFORMATION_2 for the recovery of debt, according to which it was decided: “To recover from the company INFORMATION_2 (ADDRESS_1, registration number NUMBER_1) in favour of INFORMATION_1 (ADDRESS_2; EDRPOU code NUMBER_2) INFORMATION_3 as a penalty for failure to deliver goods within the time limits provided for by the Specification to the Contract, INFORMATION_4 as a fine for delay in delivery of goods exceeding 30 days, and INFORMATION_5 as reimbursement of the arbitration fee, in total INFORMATION_6”.

It recovered from the company INFORMATION_2 in favour of INFORMATION_1 court costs in the amount of INFORMATION_7.

On 23 March 2026, via the “Electronic Court” subsystem, attorney PERSON_2, on behalf of INFORMATION_2, applied to the Supreme Court with an appeal against the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal of 26 February 2026, in which she asked that the contested ruling be set aside and that the application of INFORMATION_1 for recognition and grant of leave to enforce the award of the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry of 26 March 2024 in case No. 425/2023 upon the claim of INFORMATION_1 against a legal entity established under the laws of INFORMATION_2 for the recovery of debt be left without consideration.

By a ruling of 3 April 2026, the Supreme Court opened appellate proceedings in this case; requested case No. 824/139/25 from the Kyiv Court of Appeal; sent the participants in the case copies of the appeal and the documents attached to it, and explained to them their right to file, within ten days from the date of service of this ruling, a response to the appeal.

On 23 April 2026, the materials of case No. 824/139/25 were received by the Supreme Court from the Kyiv Court of Appeal.

By a ruling of 28 April 2026, the Supreme Court completed the preparatory actions and scheduled the case for hearing in an open court session.

On 1 May 2026, via the “Electronic Court” subsystem, the Supreme Court received a motion of the representative of INFORMATION_1, PERSON_1, for the case to be heard in a closed court session.

The motion was justified on the ground that, if the case were heard in an open court session, there would be a risk of disclosure of sensitive information on the range of defence goods for the needs of the Defence Forces of Ukraine, the supplier country of such goods, the status of performance of foreign economic contracts, etc. Placing such information in the public domain is contrary to the neutral position of certain supplier countries regarding Ukraine's resistance to Russian aggression, since the supply of defence goods from such countries is carried out with the “tacit consent” of their military and political leadership. In such circumstances, the very fact of conclusion of a contract with the relevant counterparties from neutral countries is extremely sensitive information, and its disclosure may harm the need for the supply of a critical range of defence goods for the needs of the Defence Forces of Ukraine under other contracts.

He stated that information on property, in particular its range, quantity and location, information on the responsible custodians of the property, officials, etc., makes it possible to identify the location of the property and of officials, and may be used by the aggressor state to carry out intelligence and subversive activities or otherwise be used against Ukraine and harm the supply of defence goods for the needs of the Defence Forces of Ukraine or otherwise adversely affect the interests of the State under the legal regime of martial law.

He considers that, in order to prevent disclosure of restricted information that may adversely affect the activities of Ukraine under the legal regime of martial law, there is a need to hear the case in a closed court session.

Pursuant to Article 7(1) and (7) of the CPC of Ukraine, cases in courts are heard orally and openly, except in cases provided for by this Code. A case is heard in a closed court session in cases where an open court hearing may result in the disclosure of secret or other information protected by law, or upon the motion of participants in the case in order to ensure the secrecy of adoption, to prevent the disclosure of information about intimate or other personal aspects of the lives of participants in the case or information that degrades their honour and dignity, as well as in other cases established by law.

A ruling is issued on hearing the case in a closed court session. By a ruling, the court may declare the court session closed in full or in part (Article 7(9) of the CPC of Ukraine).

According to Article 7(10) and (11) of the CPC of Ukraine, the hearing of a case and the performance of individual procedural actions in a closed court session are carried out in compliance with the rules of civil proceedings. Only the participants in the case and, where necessary, witnesses, experts, specialists and interpreters may be present during such a hearing. The court warns such persons of the obligation not to disclose the information for the protection of which the case is heard or individual procedural actions are performed in a closed court session. The use of videoconferencing systems and broadcasting of the course of the court session on the Internet is not permitted in a closed court session.

While the case was before the Kyiv Court of Appeal, it was heard in a closed court session.

Therefore, having regard to the subject matter of the dispute, the documents of INFORMATION_1 contained in the case file, its arguments as to their significance for ensuring the national security and defence of Ukraine, taking into account the introduction of martial law in Ukraine and the circumstances related to the need to ensure the safekeeping of official information of the defence agency, and also taking into account that the case was heard by the court of first instance in a closed court session, the panel of judges considers it possible to hear this case in a closed court session.

Therefore, the motion of the representative of INFORMATION_1, PERSON_1, for the case to be heard in a closed court session is to be granted.

Guided by Articles 7, 24, 260 and 351 of the CPC of Ukraine, the Supreme Court, composed of a panel of judges of the Third Judicial Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court,

RULED:

To grant the motion of the representative of INFORMATION_1, PERSON_1.

The case on the application of INFORMATION_1 for recognition and grant of leave to enforce the award of the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry of 26 March 2024 in case No. 425/2023 upon the claim of INFORMATION_1 against a legal entity established under the laws of INFORMATION_2 for the recovery of debt, upon the appeal of the legal entity established under the laws of INFORMATION_2 against the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal of 26 February 2026, shall be heard in a closed court session.

The ruling is not subject to appeal.

Judges: S. Yu. Martiev

V. M. Ihnatenko

S. O. Karpenko