Resolution of the Supreme Court of Ukraine in the case 824/61/25 dated 12 February 2026

RESOLUTION

IN THE NAME OF UKRAINE

12 February 2026

Kyiv

Case No. 824/61/25

Proceedings No. 61-14907av25

The Supreme Court, sitting as a panel of judges of the Second Judicial Chamber of the Civil Court of Cassation: Ye. V. Korotenko (Judge-Rapporteur), A. Yu. Zaitsev and M. Yu. Titov,

with the participation of the court hearing secretary, O. I. Khursiakova,

parties to the case:

applicant (award creditor) — the Department of Roads of the Ministry of Infrastructure of Georgia,

interested party (award debtor) — Road Construction Altcom Limited Liability Company,

considered, at a public hearing in the Supreme Court building (28 Povitrianykh Syl Avenue, Kyiv), the appeal of Road Construction Altcom Limited Liability Company against the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal of 27 October 2025, made by Judge O. F. Lapchevska, in the case concerning the application of the Department of Roads of the Ministry of Infrastructure of Georgia for recognition and permission to enforce in Ukraine the final award of the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris of 19 May 2022, in the case brought by the Department of Roads of the Ministry of Infrastructure of Georgia against Road Construction Altcom Limited Liability Company,

AND FOUND AS FOLLOWS:

Descriptive part

Summary of the application

On 16 May 2025, the Department of Roads of the Ministry of Infrastructure of Georgia (the Department) applied to the Kyiv Court of Appeal, acting as a court of first instance, for recognition and permission to enforce in Ukraine the final award of the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris of 19 May 2022, in the case brought by the Department of Roads of the Ministry of Infrastructure of Georgia against Road Construction Altcom Limited Liability Company (Road Construction Altcom LLC).

The application stated that, on 19 May 2022, the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris issued a final arbitral award in ICC Case No. 24638/MHM/HBH, brought by the Department against Road Construction Altcom LLC.

On 16 August 2022, the award was corrected and amended as regards the interest awarded to the Department, payable by the debtor and specified in paragraphs 514, 516, 520, 541(b)–(e), (g), (k), and 541(1), by the adoption of an addendum to the award.

ICC Case No. 24638/MHM/HBH was heard under the ICC Arbitration Rules in force from 1 March 2017. The seat of arbitration was Paris, France, as expressly stated in the award itself. Both parties participated in the arbitration through their representatives.

The award is final and has become effective, and is therefore binding on the parties under Article 35(6) of the ICC Arbitration Rules.

Summary of the ruling under appeal

By its ruling of 27 October 2025, the Kyiv Court of Appeal granted the application of the Department of Roads of the Ministry of Infrastructure of Georgia.

It recognised and permitted enforcement in Ukraine of the award rendered by the arbitral tribunal (presiding arbitrator Ms Melanie van Leeuwen and arbitrators Dr Bernhard Berger and Dr Simon Gabriel) under the ICC Arbitration Rules in Paris, France, on 19 May 2022, in ICC Case No. 24638/MHM/HBH, as amended by the addendum of 16 August 2022, in the case brought by the Department of Roads of the Ministry of Regional Development and Infrastructure of Georgia against Road Construction Altcom Limited Liability Company.

A writ of execution was issued for the above award, rendered under the ICC Arbitration Rules in ICC Case No. 24638/MHM/HBH, as amended by the addendum of 16 August 2022. The debtor was ordered to pay the applicant USD 153,277.14, EUR 19,606,661.20 and GEL 1,613,731.08, together with:

simple interest on EUR 18,388,910.51, accruing from 27 November 2017 at the rate of 12-month EURIBOR + 2%, until full and final payment;

simple interest on EUR 14,209.24, accruing from 27 November 2017 at the rate of 12-month EURIBOR + 2%, until full and final payment;

simple interest on GEL 32,144.15, accruing from 27 November 2017 at the annual rate of 7.78%, until full and final payment;

simple interest on EUR 63,355.77, accruing from 27 November 2017 at the rate of 12-month EURIBOR + 2%, until full and final payment;

simple interest on GEL 143,323.42, accruing from 27 November 2017 at the annual rate of 7.78%, until full and final payment;

simple interest on EUR 339,267.13, accruing from 27 November 2017 at the rate of 12-month EURIBOR + 2%, until full and final payment;

simple interest on GEL 767,490.10, accruing from 27 November 2017 at the annual rate of 7.78%, until full and final payment;

simple interest on EUR 523,728.55, accruing from 27 November 2017 at the rate of 12-month EURIBOR + 2%, until full and final payment;

simple interest on GEL 609,994.04, accruing from 27 November 2017 at the annual rate of 7.78%, until full and final payment;

simple interest on GEL 60,779.37, accruing from 27 November 2017 at the annual rate of 7.78%, until full and final payment;

simple interest on EUR 277,190, accruing from the date of the award (19 May 2022) at the rate of 12-month EURIBOR + 2%, until full and final payment;

simple interest on USD 153,277.14, accruing from the date of the award (19 May 2022) at the rate of 12-month USD LIBOR + 2%, until full and final payment.

Road Construction Altcom LLC was ordered to pay the Department of Roads of the Ministry of Infrastructure of Georgia UAH 1,514.00 in court fees.

In making its ruling, the Kyiv Court of Appeal proceeded on the basis that there were grounds to grant the application.

In particular, the court took into account that the applicant had applied, within the time limit established by law (Article 475 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine), to the competent court for recognition and permission to enforce the award of the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris of 19 May 2022; the arbitration agreement had not been declared invalid; the debtor had been duly notified of the appointment of the arbitrator and of the arbitration; the award did not contravene the arbitration agreement; the composition of the international commercial arbitral tribunal and the arbitral procedure complied with the parties’ agreement; and the award had already become binding on the parties, had not been set aside, and its enforcement had not been suspended by a court.

Summary of the relief sought in the appeal and the appellant’s arguments

On 26 November 2025, Road Construction Altcom LLC lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court against the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal of 27 October 2025, prepared in the Electronic Court system, seeking to have the ruling set aside and replaced with a new decision refusing the application of the Department of Roads of the Ministry of Infrastructure of Georgia.

The appeal alleged that the Kyiv Court of Appeal had made the challenged ruling in breach of substantive and procedural law, without fully examining all circumstances material to the case.

Arguments of the other parties

In her response to the appeal dated 22 December 2025, the representative of the Department of Roads of the Ministry of Infrastructure of Georgia, advocate V. S. Hodlevska, requested that the court dismiss the appeal and uphold the challenged ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal, arguing that it was lawful and well-founded.

Receipt of the appeal by the court

By its ruling of 9 December 2025, the Supreme Court opened appellate proceedings on the appeal and requested the case file.

The Supreme Court received the case file on 25 December 2025.

By its ruling of 29 December 2025, the Supreme Court listed the case for hearing on 22 January 2026 at 10:00.

Facts of the case

It was established that, on 12 December 2013, the Department of Roads of the Ministry of Infrastructure of Georgia and Road Construction Altcom LLC concluded Contract No. EWHG/CW/ICB-01 for the construction of the Samtredia–Grigoleti section of the E-60 highway (Section I, KM 0+000–KM 11+500) in Georgia.

Under Clause 20.6 of Contract No. EWHG/CW/ICB-01 of 12 December 2013, any dispute arising between the parties in connection with the Contract that has not been settled amicably under Clause 20.5 above, and in respect of which a DAB decision, if any, has not become final and binding, shall be finally settled by arbitration. “DAB” means the person or three persons appointed under Clause 20.2 (Appointment of the Dispute Adjudication Board) or Clause 20.3 (Failure to Agree on the Composition of the Dispute Adjudication Board). Arbitration shall be conducted as follows:

(a) where the Contract is with foreign contractors, (i) for contracts financed by all Participating Banks, except as provided in subparagraph (a)(2) below: international arbitration (1) with proceedings administered by the arbitration institution designated in the Contract Documents, under that institution’s rules; or, if specified in the Contract Documents, (2) international arbitration under the rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL); or (3) if neither an arbitration institution nor the UNCITRAL Rules are specified in the Contract Documents, proceedings administered by the International Chamber of Commerce under the ICC Arbitration Rules, by one or more arbitrators appointed under those rules.

(b) where the Contract is with domestic contractors, arbitration shall be conducted under the law of the Employer’s country. Arbitration shall take place at the neutral location specified in the Contract Documents, and shall be conducted in the language defined for communications under Sub-Clause 1-D [Law and Language of Communications].

The arbitrators shall have full power to open up, review and revise any certificate, determination, instruction, opinion or valuation of the Engineer, and any DAB decision relevant to the dispute. There shall be no reason to prevent representatives of the Parties and the Engineer from being called as witnesses and giving evidence before the arbitrators on any matter relevant to the dispute.

Neither Party shall be limited in the proceedings before the arbitrators to the evidence or arguments previously submitted to the DAB for its decision, or to the reasons for dissatisfaction given in its notice of dissatisfaction. Any DAB decision shall be admissible in evidence in the arbitration.

Arbitration may be commenced before or after completion of the Works. The obligations of the Parties, the Engineer and the DAB shall not be altered by reason of any arbitration being conducted during performance of the Works.

Under Clause 20.7 of Contract No. EWHG/CW/ICB-01 of 12 December 2013, if a Party fails to comply with a final and binding DAB decision, the other Party may, without prejudice to its other rights, refer the matter to arbitration under Sub-Clause 20.6 (Arbitration). Sub-Clause 20.4 (Obtaining the Dispute Adjudication Board’s Decision) and Sub-Clause 20.5 (Amicable Settlement) shall not apply in that case.

Clause 20.8 of Contract No. EWHG/CW/ICB-01 of 12 December 2013 provides that, if a dispute arises between the Parties in connection with, or arising out of, the Contract or the execution of the Works, and no DAB is in place, whether because its appointment has expired or otherwise: (a) Clause 20.4 [Obtaining the Dispute Adjudication Board’s Decision] and Clause 20.5 [Amicable Settlement] shall not apply; and (b) the dispute may be referred directly to arbitration under Clause 20.6 [Arbitration].

Because of failure to meet the contractual deadlines, on 18 July 2017 the Department of Roads of the Ministry of Infrastructure of Georgia sent Road Construction Altcom LLC a notice terminating the Contract.

Subsequently, on 2 October 2017, the Department of Roads of the Ministry of Infrastructure of Georgia again sent Road Construction Altcom LLC a notice terminating the Contract.

Following termination of the Contract, on 13 November 2018 the Department of Roads of the Ministry of Infrastructure of Georgia concluded a contract with Akkord Industry to complete the Works.

On 22 July 2019, under Article 4 of the ICC Arbitration Rules, the Department of Roads of the Ministry of Infrastructure of Georgia commenced arbitration against Road Construction Altcom LLC by submitting a Request for Arbitration with its annexes.

On 19 May 2022, the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce issued a final award in ICC Case No. 24638/MHM/HBH, brought by the Department of Roads of the Ministry of Infrastructure of Georgia against Road Construction Altcom LLC.

The arbitral tribunal determined that it had jurisdiction to hear the dispute.

It ordered Road Construction Altcom LLC to pay the Department of Roads of the Ministry of Regional Development and Infrastructure of Georgia EUR 18,388,910.51 for the outstanding balance of the Advance Payment, if and to the extent that the Department had not recovered that amount from Prominvestbank, together with simple interest accruing from 27 November 2017 at an annual rate of 12-month EURIBOR + 2%, until full and final payment.

It ordered Road Construction Altcom LLC to pay the Department of Roads of the Ministry of Regional Development and Infrastructure of Georgia EUR 14,209.24 for additional bridge works, together with simple interest accruing from 27 November 2017 at an annual rate of 12-month EURIBOR + 2%, until full and final payment, and GEL 32,144.15, together with simple interest accruing from 27 November 2017 at an annual rate of 7.78%, until full and final payment.

It ordered Road Construction Altcom LLC to pay the Department of Roads of the Ministry of Regional Development and Infrastructure of Georgia EUR 63,355.77 for materials paid for but not incorporated into the Works, together with simple interest accruing from 27 November 2017 at an annual rate of 12-month EURIBOR + 2%, until full and final payment, and GEL 143,323.42, together with simple interest accruing from 27 November 2017 at an annual rate of 7.78%, until full and final payment.

It ordered Road Construction Altcom LLC to pay the Department of Roads of the Ministry of Regional Development and Infrastructure of Georgia EUR 339,267.13 in contractual penalties for failure to meet the milestones specified in the Particular Conditions of Contract, together with simple interest accruing from 27 November 2017 at an annual rate of 12-month EURIBOR + 2%, until full and final payment, and GEL 767,490.10, together with simple interest accruing from 27 November 2017 at an annual rate of 7.78%, until full and final payment.

It dismissed the Department of Roads of the Ministry of Regional Development and Infrastructure of Georgia’s claim for delay damages of EUR 3,438,143.82 and GEL 7,777,768.94.

It ordered Road Construction Altcom LLC to pay the Department of Roads of the Ministry of Regional Development and Infrastructure of Georgia EUR 523,728.55 for supervision costs incurred before 21 November 2017, together with simple interest accruing from 27 November 2017 at an annual rate of 12-month EURIBOR + 2% “until 2017” [as in the original] until full and final payment, and GEL 609,994.04, together with simple interest accruing from 27 November 2017 at an annual rate of 7.78%, until full and final payment.

It ordered Road Construction Altcom LLC to pay the Department of Roads of the Ministry of Regional Development and Infrastructure of Georgia GEL 60,779.37 for legal costs incurred in connection with termination of the Contract, together with simple interest accruing from 27 November 2017 at an annual rate of 7.78%, until full and final payment.

It dismissed the Department of Roads of the Ministry of Regional Development and Infrastructure of Georgia’s claim for loss of the opportunity to use Section 1 of the Samtredia–Grigoleti section of the E-60 highway.

It dismissed the Department of Roads of the Ministry of Regional Development and Infrastructure of Georgia’s claim for supervision costs incurred after 21 November 2017.

It ordered Road Construction Altcom LLC to pay the Department of Roads of the Ministry of Regional Development and Infrastructure of Georgia EUR 277,190 for the costs of the arbitration fixed by the ICC Court, together with simple interest accruing at an annual rate of 12-month EURIBOR + 2% from the date of the award until full and final payment.

It ordered Road Construction Altcom LLC to pay the Department of Roads of the Ministry of Regional Development and Infrastructure of Georgia USD 153,277.14 for legal and other costs, together with simple interest accruing at an annual rate of 12-month USD LIBOR + 2% from the date of the award until full and final payment; and dismissed all other claims.

On 21 June 2022, the Department of Roads applied for interpretation and correction of the tribunal’s final award.

On 16 August 2022, the award was corrected and amended as regards the interest awarded to the Department, payable by the debtor and specified in paragraphs 514, 516, 520, 541(b)–(e), (g), (k), and 541(1), by the adoption of an addendum to the award.

The tribunal corrected the Final Award by deleting the word “annual” from paragraphs 514, 520, 541(b)–(e), (g), and (k), which now read as follows: 514. In the absence of any appropriate and reliable benchmark for determining the interest rate applicable to the euro amounts, having regard to the Department of Roads’ alternative submission that the Tribunal may award interest at another rate it considers more appropriate, and to the absence of any objection by Altcom, the Tribunal exercises its discretion to award interest at an alternative rate it considers appropriate in the circumstances of this case. The Tribunal considers it appropriate to award simple interest on the euro amounts awarded at EURIBOR (12 months) + 2%, given that EURIBOR is a leading interest rate for euro amounts and was published throughout the relevant period. The Tribunal also considers that this rate should apply to reimbursement of the arbitration costs fixed by the ICC in euros.

520. Accordingly, on the basis set out in paragraphs 508–519 above, the Tribunal awards: simple interest from 27 November 2017 until full and final payment at EURIBOR (12 months) + 2% on all principal claims in euros and at 7.78% on all principal amounts in lari; and simple interest from the date of the award until full and final payment at EURIBOR (12 months) + 2% on the arbitration costs incurred in euros.

541. For the foregoing reasons, the Tribunal:

(b) Orders Road Construction Altcom LLC to pay the Department of Roads of the Ministry of Regional Development and Infrastructure of Georgia EUR 18,388,910.51 for the outstanding balance of the Advance Payment, if and to the extent that the Department has not recovered that amount from Prominvestbank, together with simple interest accruing from 27 November 2017 at 12-month EURIBOR + 2%, until full and final payment.

(c) Orders Road Construction Altcom LLC to pay the Department of Roads of the Ministry of Regional Development and Infrastructure of Georgia EUR 14,209.24 for additional bridge works, together with simple interest accruing from 27 November 2017 at 12-month EURIBOR + 2%, until full and final payment, and GEL 32,144.15, together with simple interest accruing from 27 November 2017 at an annual rate of 7.78%, until full and final payment.

(d) Orders Road Construction Altcom LLC to pay the Department of Roads of the Ministry of Regional Development and Infrastructure of Georgia EUR 63,355.77 for materials paid for but not incorporated into the Works, together with simple interest accruing from 27 November 2017 at 12-month EURIBOR + 2%, until full and final payment, and GEL 143,323.42, together with simple interest accruing from 27 November 2017 at an annual rate of 7.78%, until full and final payment.

(e) Orders Road Construction Altcom LLC to pay the Department of Roads of the Ministry of Regional Development and Infrastructure of Georgia EUR 339,267.13 in contractual penalties for failure to meet the milestones specified in the Particular Conditions of Contract, together with simple interest accruing from 27 November 2017 at 12-month EURIBOR + 2%, until full and final payment, and GEL 767,490.10, together with simple interest accruing from 27 November 2017 at an annual rate of 7.78%, until full and final payment.

(g) Orders Road Construction Altcom LLC to pay the Department of Roads of the Ministry of Regional Development and Infrastructure of Georgia EUR 523,728.55 for supervision costs incurred before 21 November 2017, together with simple interest accruing from 27 November 2017 at 12-month EURIBOR + 2%, until full and final payment, and GEL 609,994.04, together with simple interest accruing from 27 November 2017 at an annual rate of 7.78%, until full and final payment.

(k) Orders Road Construction Altcom LLC to pay the Department of Roads of the Ministry of Regional Development and Infrastructure of Georgia EUR 277,190 for the costs of the arbitration fixed by the ICC Court, together with simple interest accruing at 12-month EURIBOR + 2% from the date of the award until full and final payment.

(b) Corrects the Final Award by deleting the word “annual” from paragraphs 516, 520 and 541(1), which now read as follows:

516. As regards the appropriate interest rate applicable to the US dollar amounts in which the Claimant’s request for reimbursement of legal and other costs is expressed (see Section IX.F below), the Tribunal notes that the Parties have not proposed any applicable interest rate. Exercising its discretion as discussed above, the Tribunal considers it appropriate in the circumstances of this case to award simple interest on the US dollar amount at LIBOR (12 months) + 2%, given that LIBOR is a leading interest rate for US dollar amounts and was published throughout the relevant period.

520. Accordingly, on the basis set out in paragraphs 508–519 above, the Tribunal awards simple interest from the date of the award until full and final payment at USD LIBOR (12 months) + 2% on the legal and other costs incurred in US dollars.

541(1). Orders Road Construction Altcom LLC to pay the Department of Roads of the Ministry of Regional Development and Infrastructure of Georgia USD 153,277.14 for legal and other costs, together with simple interest accruing at 12-month USD LIBOR + 2% from the date of the award until full and final payment.

It dismissed the request to amend paragraphs 516, 520 and 541(1) of the Final Award to specify the type and rate of interest accruing on “Legal and Other Costs” incurred in US dollars; and dismissed the alternative request for other clarifications and corrections.

ICC Case No. 24638/MHM/HBH was heard under the ICC Arbitration Rules in force from 1 March 2017. The seat of arbitration was Paris, France, as expressly stated in the award itself. Both parties participated in the arbitration through their representatives.

Reasons

The Supreme Court’s position

Article 24(2) and Article 351(2) of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine provide that the Supreme Court reviews on appeal decisions made by courts of appeal acting as courts of first instance.

Under Article 367(1) of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, the appellate court reviews the case on the evidence in the case file and any additional evidence submitted, and examines the lawfulness and soundness of the first-instance decision within the arguments and relief sought in the appeal.

Under Article 368(1) and (3) of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, the appellate court hears the case under the rules for simplified claim proceedings, subject to the provisions of this Chapter. Cases before the appellate court are heard at a court hearing of which the parties are notified, except in the circumstances provided for in Article 369 of the Code.

Having heard the Judge-Rapporteur’s report and examined the arguments in the appeal and the case file, the Supreme Court concludes that the appeal must be dismissed for the following reasons.

The purpose of civil proceedings is the fair, impartial and timely hearing and determination of civil cases in order effectively to protect individuals’ infringed, unrecognised or disputed rights, freedoms or interests, the rights and interests of legal entities, and the interests of the State. The court and parties must be guided by this purpose, which prevails over all other considerations in the proceedings (Article 2(1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine).

Under Article 263(1), (2) and (5) of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, a judicial decision must be based on the rule of law and be lawful and well-founded.

A decision is lawful if made by the court in accordance with substantive law and in compliance with procedural law.

A decision is well-founded if based on a full and comprehensive ascertainment of the circumstances relied on by the parties in support of their claims and objections, substantiated by the evidence examined at the hearing.

The challenged ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal complies with these statutory requirements.

The Supreme Court’s reasons and the applicable law

Under Article 35(1) of the Law of Ukraine on International Commercial Arbitration, an arbitral award, irrespective of the country in which it was made, shall be recognised as binding and, upon a written application to the competent court, shall be enforced subject to the provisions of that Article and Article 36.

Recognition and permission to enforce an international commercial arbitral award means extending the award’s legal effect to Ukraine and applying measures of compulsory enforcement under the procedure established by the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine.

Under Article 474 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, an international commercial arbitral award, where the seat of arbitration is outside Ukraine, shall be recognised and enforced in Ukraine irrespective of the country in which it was made, if recognition and enforcement are provided for by an international treaty to which the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine has consented to be bound, or on the basis of reciprocity. Where recognition and enforcement depend on reciprocity, reciprocity is presumed unless the contrary is proved.

Under Article 475 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, the court considers recognition and permission to enforce an international commercial arbitral award on the award creditor’s application under this Chapter if the debtor’s place of residence, stay or registered office is in Ukraine. If the debtor has no such place in Ukraine, or that place is unknown, the court considers permission for compulsory enforcement if the debtor has property in Ukraine. An application for recognition and permission to enforce an international commercial arbitral award is submitted to the court of appeal whose jurisdiction extends to Kyiv within three years of the date of the arbitral award. An application submitted after the time limit in paragraph 3 of that Article is returned without consideration. On the applicant’s request, the court may restore the missed time limit if it considers the reasons for missing it valid.

Under Article 479(1) of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, after considering the application for recognition and permission to enforce an international commercial arbitral award, the court makes a ruling granting or refusing recognition and permission to enforce, under the rules established by the Code for making a decision.

Under Article 482(1) of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, permission to enforce an international commercial arbitral award where the seat of arbitration is in Ukraine is granted by the court under the procedure in this Chapter, subject to the provisions of that Article.

The legal relations concerning permission for compulsory enforcement of an international commercial arbitral award are governed by Article V of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 10 June 1958 (New York), which entered into force for Ukraine on 10 January 1961 (the Convention), Article 9 of the Agreement on the Procedure for Resolving Disputes Related to the Conduct of Economic Activity of 20 March 1992, ratified by Resolution No. 2889-XII of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine of 19 December 1992, and Article 36 of the Law of Ukraine on International Commercial Arbitration. Under these provisions, the party opposing the award creditor’s application bears the burden of proving grounds for refusing recognition and enforcement of the award. Article 478 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine must be applied with these provisions in mind.

Under Article 478 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine and Article 36 of the Law of Ukraine on International Commercial Arbitration, the court refuses recognition and permission to enforce an international commercial arbitral award if: (1) at the request of the party against whom it is invoked, that party furnishes proof to the court that: (a) a party to the arbitration agreement was under some incapacity, or the agreement is invalid under the law to which the parties subjected it or, failing any indication, under the law of the State where the award was made; or (b) the party against whom the award was made was not given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or of the arbitration, or was unable for other valid reasons to present its explanations; or (c) the award concerns a dispute not contemplated by, or not falling within the terms of, the arbitration agreement, or contains decisions on matters beyond its scope; however, if decisions on matters within the agreement can be separated from those outside it, the part of the award containing decisions on matters within the agreement may be recognised and enforced; or (d) the composition of the international commercial arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the parties’ agreement or, failing such agreement, with the law of the State where the arbitration took place; or (e) the award has not yet become binding on the parties, or has been set aside, or its enforcement has been suspended by a court of the State in which, or under the law of which, it was made; or (2) the court finds that: (a) under the law, the subject matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by international commercial arbitration; or (b) recognition and enforcement of the award would be contrary to the public policy of Ukraine.

Accordingly, in deciding recognition and permission to enforce an international commercial arbitral award, the court does not review the correctness of the award on the merits of the dispute. It examines only compliance with the time limits for applying, compliance with procedural requirements as to the application’s form and content, and the existence of circumstances that may justify refusal of recognition and permission for compulsory enforcement (see the Supreme Court’s resolution of 4 November 2025 in Case No. 824/26/25).

Article 7(1) of the Law of Ukraine on International Commercial Arbitration defines an arbitration agreement as an agreement by the parties to submit to arbitration all or certain disputes that have arisen or may arise between them in connection with a defined legal relationship, whether contractual or not. An arbitration agreement may take the form of an arbitration clause in a contract or a separate agreement.

Under Article 20(1) of the Law of Ukraine on International Commercial Arbitration, the parties are free to agree on the place of arbitration. Failing such agreement, the place is determined by the arbitral tribunal having regard to the circumstances of the case, including the convenience of the parties.

In its resolution of 10 February 2022 in Case No. 824/116/21, the Supreme Court stated that an arbitration agreement has positive and negative effects. It obliges the parties to submit disputes to arbitration and confers jurisdiction on the arbitral tribunal over disputes covered by the agreement (the positive effect). If a dispute within the scope of the agreement arises, either party may refer it to the arbitral tribunal. Conversely, the agreement prevents the parties from attempting to resolve their disputes in court (the negative effect). By concluding an arbitration agreement, the parties determine another procedure, binding on them, for exercising their right to judicial remedies, namely before a particular international commercial arbitral tribunal or tribunals. A party to an arbitration agreement may not ignore its terms and, instead of the chosen arbitration, apply to a State court that would have jurisdiction absent the agreement. Under the principle of competence-competence, the arbitral tribunal has the power to decide whether it has jurisdiction over a particular dispute between the parties to the arbitration clause.

Thus, by concluding an arbitration clause, the parties expressed their intention to submit to international commercial arbitration and must perform the obligations arising from that clause.

In hearing this case (No. 824/61/25), the Kyiv Court of Appeal found that the award of the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris of 19 May 2022, in the case brought by the Department of Roads of the Ministry of Infrastructure of Georgia against Road Construction Altcom LLC, had become effective. Accordingly, the enforceability of the arbitration agreement has already been determined.

Furthermore, in the case under review, the Kyiv Court of Appeal also found that:

the applicant had applied within the statutory time limit (Article 475 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine) to the competent court for recognition and permission to enforce the award of the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris of 19 May 2022;

the arbitration agreement had not been declared invalid;

the debtor had been duly notified of the appointment of the arbitrator and of the arbitration;

the arbitral award did not contravene the arbitration agreement;

the composition of the international commercial arbitral tribunal and the arbitral procedure complied with the parties’ agreement;

the award of the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris of 19 May 2022, in the case brought by the Department of Roads of the Ministry of Infrastructure of Georgia against Road Construction Altcom LLC, had already become binding on the parties, had not been set aside, and its enforcement had not been suspended by a court.

In these circumstances, having established that the award of the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris of 19 May 2022, in the case brought by the Department of Roads of the Ministry of Infrastructure of Georgia against Road Construction Altcom LLC, had become effective and was enforceable, and that there were no grounds under Article V of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 10 June 1958, Article 478 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, or Article 36 of the Law of Ukraine on International Commercial Arbitration to refuse the Department’s application for recognition and permission to enforce that award in Ukraine, the panel of Supreme Court judges considers that the Kyiv Court of Appeal reached a well-founded conclusion in granting the application.

The applicant’s argument that there were two separate decisions in the case — the award of the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris of 19 May 2022 and its Addendum of 16 August 2022 — is refuted by Article 36 of the ICC Arbitration Rules, under which the Addendum forms an integral part of the award.

The applicant’s contention that the Addendum contained no date is refuted by the case file, in particular the Addendum itself (page 13), which states its date: 16 August 2022.

The applicant’s argument that it was unable to present explanations in the commercial arbitration because of hostilities and the occupation of Mariupol, where Road Construction Altcom LLC was registered at the time, cannot be accepted. The case file shows that the hearing on the merits of Case No. 24638/MHM/HBH took place by videoconference from 29 June to 2 July 2021, followed by the procedure for issuance of the final award. Thus, the key procedural steps involving the parties were completed before 24 February 2022, the start of the Russian Federation’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

Furthermore, it was established that, on 21 June 2022, the Department of Roads of the Ministry of Infrastructure of Georgia applied for interpretation and correction of the tribunal’s final award.

On 21 June 2022, the tribunal acknowledged receipt of that application and invited Road Construction Altcom LLC to comment on the Department of Roads of the Ministry of Infrastructure of Georgia’s application by 28 June 2022.

On 28 June 2022, Road Construction Altcom LLC submitted its comments on the application of the Department of Roads of the Ministry of Infrastructure of Georgia.

This is apparent, in particular, from Section III, “Procedural History”, of the Addendum of 16 August 2022, and demonstrates that the rights and interests of the debtor, Road Construction Altcom LLC, in presenting explanations and comments to the commercial arbitral tribunal were not infringed.

The applicant’s contention that the case had to be heard by the Commercial Court of Cherkasy Region because that court had, by a ruling of 8 September 2025, opened Case No. 925/843/25 concerning the bankruptcy of Road Construction Altcom LLC is unfounded for the following reasons.

Under Article 7(1) and (2) of the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures, disputes to which the debtor is a party are heard by the commercial court under the rules of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, subject to the provisions of that Article.

The commercial court hearing the bankruptcy or insolvency case determines within that case all property disputes to which the debtor is a party; disputes concerning claims against the debtor and its property; disputes concerning invalidation of auction results; disputes concerning invalidation of any transactions entered into by the debtor; disputes concerning return or recovery of the debtor’s property or reimbursement of its value, as applicable; disputes concerning compensation for harm and/or losses caused to the debtor; disputes concerning recovery of wages; disputes concerning reinstatement of the debtor’s officers and employees; and disputes concerning other claims against the debtor, including the determination and payment or recovery of monetary obligations (tax debt) determined under the Tax Code of Ukraine.

On the initiative of a party or the court, the file in a case to which the debtor is a party concerning a dispute listed in paragraph 2 of that Article, where proceedings were opened before or after the bankruptcy or insolvency case was opened, is sent without delay, and no later than five working days, to the commercial court hearing the bankruptcy or insolvency case, which determines the dispute on the merits within that case (Article 7(3) of the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures).

In view of these provisions, the Kyiv Court of Appeal had no grounds to transfer the file in Case No. 824/61/25 to the commercial court hearing the bankruptcy or insolvency case concerning Road Construction Altcom LLC, because Case No. 824/61/25 is not a case to which the debtor is a party concerning a dispute listed in Article 7(2) of the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures. No property dispute is determined in this case. It concerns only the procedural question whether the final award of the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris of 19 May 2022 may be recognised and enforced in Ukraine; it was that award which determined the property dispute to which Road Construction Altcom LLC was a party. In Case No. 824/61/25, the court does not review the correctness of the arbitral award on the merits. It examines only compliance with the time limits for applying, compliance with procedural requirements as to the application’s form and content, and the existence of circumstances that may justify refusal of recognition and permission for compulsory enforcement.

The other arguments in the appeal amount to disagreement with the first-instance court’s conclusions and refer to facts already examined and assessed by the court. They do not refute the conclusion that there are statutory grounds to grant the application for recognition and permission to enforce the international commercial arbitral award.

The arguments in the appeal do not refute the correctness of the first-instance court’s conclusions, which are properly set out in the reasons for the challenged decision. They amount to disagreement by the applicant with the conclusions on the assessment of facts and refer to facts already examined and assessed by the first-instance court.

Conclusions on the appeal

Under Article 375 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, the appellate court dismisses the appeal and upholds the decision if it finds that the first-instance court made its decision in compliance with substantive and procedural law.

In view of the foregoing, the panel considers it necessary to dismiss the appeal and uphold the challenged ruling, because the arguments in the appeal do not refute the court’s conclusions and do not affect the lawfulness or soundness of the decision.

Pursuant to Articles 24, 351, 367, 368, 374, 375 and 381–384 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, the Supreme Court, sitting as a panel of judges of the Second Judicial Chamber of the Civil Court of Cassation,

RESOLVES:

To dismiss the appeal of Road Construction Altcom Limited Liability Company.

To uphold the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal of 27 October 2025.

This resolution takes effect upon its adoption, is final and is not subject to appeal.

The full text of the resolution was prepared on 13 February 2026.

Judges: Ye. V. Korotenko

A. Yu. Zaitsev

M. Yu. Titov