Resolution of the Supreme Court of Ukraine in the case 824/131/25 dated 11 June 2026

RESOLUTION

IN THE NAME OF UKRAINE

11 June 2026, Kyiv, Case No. 824/131/25, proceeding No. 61-3204av26

The Supreme Court, composed of the panel of judges of the Second Judicial Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court (the “Supreme Court”): judge-rapporteur P. I. Parkhomenko, judges D. A. Hudyma, Ye. V. Krasnoshchokov,

with the participation of:

the secretary of the court hearing, A. O. Kuts, and the representatives of the participants in the case:

for InWest Impex s.r.o., attorney O. M. Khomyn; for Joint Stock Company “National Nuclear Energy Generating Company “Energoatom”, M. L. Malakhov, having considered the appeal of Joint Stock Company “National Nuclear Energy Generating Company “Energoatom” against the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal of 3 February 2026, rendered by Judge A. M. Stryzheus, the full text of which was drawn up on 9 February 2026, on the application of InWest Impex s.r.o. 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 9 July 2025, rendered by sole arbitrator Mykola Selivon, in case No. 13/2025 on the claim of InWest Impex s.r.o. (Czech Republic) against Joint Stock Company “National Nuclear Energy Generating Company “Energoatom” for recovery of the debt for goods supplied, 3% per annum, legal aid costs and arbitration fee costs, has adopted the following resolution:

I. Summary of the application

1. In November 2025, InWest Impex s.r.o. (Czech Republic) applied to the Kyiv Court of Appeal for recognition and grant of leave to enforce the award of the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (the “ICAC at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry”) of 9 July 2025 in case No. 13/2025 on the claim of InWest Impex s.r.o. (Czech Republic) against Joint Stock Company “National Nuclear Energy Generating Company “Energoatom” (“JSC “NNEGC “Energoatom”), which is the legal successor of State Enterprise “National Nuclear Energy Generating Company “Energoatom” (“State Enterprise “NNEGC “Energoatom”), for recovery of the debt for goods supplied, 3% per annum, legal aid costs and arbitration fee costs.

2. The application was substantiated as follows:

- on 9 July 2025, the ICAC at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry rendered an award in case No. 13/2025, under which it ordered JSC “NNEGC “Energoatom” to pay to InWest Impex s.r.o. EUR 109,724.00 of principal debt for goods supplied, EUR 8,342.04 of 3% per annum and EUR 5,361.58 in reimbursement of arbitration fee costs, in total EUR 123,427.62, in connection with the improper performance of the terms of the goods supply contract of 29 June 2021 No. 53-121-01-21-100390;

- under clause 10.3 of the said goods supply contract, all disputes, disagreements or claims arising out of or in connection with that contract, including with respect to its conclusion, interpretation, performance, breach, termination or invalidity, are subject to resolution at the ICAC at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry in accordance with its Rules;

- the award of the ICAC at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry is final and entered into legal force from the date of its rendering, 9 July 2025;

- JSC “NNEGC “Energoatom” has not complied with the award of the ICAC at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and has not taken any action indicating an intention to comply with it, which compels InWest Impex s.r.o. to initiate compulsory enforcement of the award.

3. In view of the foregoing, the representative of InWest Impex s.r.o. requested the court:

- to recognise and grant leave to enforce the award of the ICAC at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry of 9 July 2025 in case No. 13/2025 on the claim of InWest Impex s.r.o. (Czech Republic) against JSC “NNEGC “Energoatom” (Ukraine) for recovery of the debt under the goods supply contract of 29 June 2021 No. 53-121-01-21-100390;

- to issue a writ of execution for the recovery from JSC “NNEGC “Energoatom” in favour of InWest Impex s.r.o. of EUR 109,724.00 of principal debt for goods supplied, EUR 8,342.04 of 3% per annum, EUR 5,361.58 in reimbursement of arbitration fee costs, in total EUR 123,427.62;

- to order JSC “NNEGC “Energoatom” to pay to InWest Impex s.r.o. (Czech Republic) the court fee in the amount of UAH 1,514.00;

- to order JSC “NNEGC “Energoatom” to pay to InWest Impex s.r.o. the legal aid costs incurred in the Kyiv Court of Appeal in the amount of EUR 500.00.

II. Summary of the contested court decision

4. By ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal of 3 February 2026, the application of the representative of InWest Impex s.r.o., attorney O. M. Khomyn, was granted.

The award of the ICAC at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry of 9 July 2025, rendered in the case on the claim of InWest Impex s.r.o. (Czech Republic) against JSC “NNEGC “Energoatom” (Ukraine), which is the legal successor of State Enterprise “NNEGC “Energoatom”, for recovery from JSC “NNEGC “Energoatom” of the debt for goods supplied, 3% per annum, legal aid costs and arbitration fee costs, was recognised and leave to enforce it was granted.

A writ of execution was issued for the compulsory enforcement of the award of the ICAC at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry of 9 July 2025 on the recovery from JSC “NNEGC “Energoatom” in favour of InWest Impex s.r.o. of EUR 109,724.00 of principal debt for goods supplied, EUR 8,342.04 of 3% per annum and EUR 5,361.58 in reimbursement of arbitration fee costs, in total EUR 123,427.62.

JSC “NNEGC “Energoatom” was ordered to pay to InWest Impex s.r.o. the court fee in the amount of UAH 1,514.00 and legal aid costs in the amount of EUR 200.00.

4. The ruling of the court of first instance was reasoned as follows:

- in applying to the court for leave to enforce the award of the ICAC at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry of 9 July 2025 in case No. 13/2025, InWest Impex s.r.o. complied with the requirements of the procedural law of Ukraine;

- in the course of the consideration of the case, no grounds provided for by Article 478 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine (the “CPC”) for refusing to grant leave to enforce the award of the ICAC at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry were established;

- the award of the ICAC at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry of 9 July 2025 in case No. 13/2025 resolved the issue of recovery from JSC “NNEGC “Energoatom” in favour of InWest Impex s.r.o. of funds in connection with non-performance of the terms of the goods supply contract signed and agreed by the parties, which has not been declared invalid by a court and is therefore binding on the parties;

- the award does not create for the debtor an obligation to pay for anything unlawful, does not indicate a breach of budget legislation, and concerns the manner of performance of obligations that arose between the participants in this case on the basis of the contract concluded between them in the sphere of commercial legal relations;

- no personal special economic and other restrictive measures (sanctions) have been applied to InWest Impex s.r.o. as the supplier of products under the concluded supply contract;

- InWest Impex s.r.o. is a company incorporated and registered under the laws of the Czech Republic, and the court has no information that its ultimate beneficial owners include the russian federation (the “rf”) or its citizens;

- should circumstances be established indicating that InWest Impex s.r.o. is connected with the aggressor state or its citizens, enforcement of the award of the ICAC at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry may be suspended at the stage of its enforcement;

- the circumstances established by the award of the ICAC at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry of 9 July 2025 in case No. 13/2025 do not concern the public, economic and social foundations of the State of Ukraine. That award was rendered in a dispute contemplated by the arbitration agreement concerning obligations that arose in 2021 and were performed by the supplier in 2021; therefore, enforcement of that award does not contravene the public policy of Ukraine, its independence, integrity, autonomy and inviolability, or constitutional rights, freedoms and guarantees;

- an unfounded refusal to recognise and grant leave for compulsory enforcement of the arbitral award in the territory of Ukraine would result in a violation of the applicants’ rights to property (the awarded sums of money payable to the applicants on the basis of a final and binding arbitral award);

- taking into account the arguments of JSC “NNEGC “Energoatom” as to the disproportionality of the amount of legal aid costs, based on the number of procedural documents prepared, the number of court hearings and their duration, and having regard to such principles of civil proceedings as reasonableness and fairness, the legal aid costs are subject to partial compensation.

III. Summary of the requests of the appeal and generalised arguments of the person who filed it

5. In the appeal, the representative of JSC “NNEGC “Energoatom” requests that the contested ruling of the court of first instance be set aside and that the application of InWest Impex s.r.o. be refused.

6. The appeal is reasoned as follows:

- the Enerhodar urban territorial community of Vasylivka district of Zaporizhzhia region, within which the production facilities and management bodies of JSC “NNEGC “Energoatom”, represented by the branch “Separate Subdivision “Zaporizhzhia NPP”, are located, has been under temporary occupation since 4 March 2022;

- the court of first instance did not verify compliance with public policy, which it was required to do of its own motion and on a mandatory basis, did not apply the provisions of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, signed in New York on 10 June 1958 (the “New York Convention”), which entered into force for Ukraine on 10 January 1961 and, within the meaning of Article 9 of the Constitution of Ukraine, forms part of the national legislation of Ukraine, and also misapplied indent 2 of Article 36(1)(2) of the Law of Ukraine of 24 February 1994 No. 4002-XII “On International Commercial Arbitration” (the “Law “On International Commercial Arbitration””);

- the court disregarded the fact that the provisions of the New York Convention and of the Law of Ukraine “On International Commercial Arbitration” do not link a refusal to recognise and grant leave to enforce an award of the ICAC at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry to the moment or period of conclusion of the arbitration agreement and supplements thereto, since the provisions of the said Convention and Law provide for a violation of public policy specifically as one of the grounds for refusal;

- the court did not take into account the absence of relevant regulatory acts of Ukraine or of a decision of the National Bank of Ukraine permitting servicing banks to carry out expenditure transactions (including a financial transaction for the purchase of currency) under foreign economic contracts providing for the supply to Ukraine of products manufactured in the rf from the territory of the rf and payment for products whose country of origin is the rf;

- the courts are obliged to verify whether the very recognition and enforcement of the relevant award of international commercial arbitration would result in a violation of the public policy of Ukraine. The clarification of this issue is by its content considerably broader than the determination of whether the transaction concluded between the parties to the arbitration proceedings is one that violates the public policy of Ukraine;

- under martial law, in order to ensure the protection of national interests in respect of future claims of the State of Ukraine in connection with the military aggression of the rf, pending the adoption and entry into force of a Law of Ukraine regulating relations involving persons connected with the aggressor state, Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine of 3 March 2022 No. 187 established a moratorium (prohibition) on the performance, including compulsory performance, of monetary and other obligations;

- the transaction of settlement under the contract of 29 June 2021 No. 53-121-01-21-10390 concluded between JSC “NNEGC “Energoatom” and InWest Impex s.r.o. does not fall within the cases to which the prohibitions do not apply;

- the company InWest Impex s.r.o. is registered and operates under the laws of the Czech Republic, but information is currently unknown as to: 1) the citizenship of the current member of this company and of its actual beneficiary (beneficial owner), and the possibility of restrictive measures being imposed against them; 2) whether InWest Impex s.r.o. has made settlements for the products that were supplied under the contract; 3) whether InWest Impex s.r.o. currently cooperates with the aggressor state, including whether it is currently purchasing goods manufactured in the rf, thereby sponsoring the terrorist state;

- the award of the ICAC at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry of 9 July 2025 in case No. 13/2025 recovered a debt under a contract for the supply of products manufactured by LLC “Tanais” (Volgodonsk, rf);

- in view of martial law, legislative provisions have been and remain in force in Ukraine aimed at preventing infringement of the interests of society and the state and the causing of property losses, including through unlawful and unfounded payments that may lead to InWest Impex s.r.o. withdrawing its capital outside Ukraine, which would be incompatible with the suspension of expenditure financial transactions under foreign economic contracts providing for the supply to Ukraine of products manufactured in the rf, and which form part of the public policy of Ukraine;

- the issue of recognition and grant of leave to enforce the award of the ICAC at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry of 9 July 2025 in case No. 13/2025 (including with respect to payment for products whose country of origin is the rf) may be decided after the adoption and entry into force of a Law of Ukraine regulating relations involving persons connected with the aggressor state, and the lifting of the moratorium (prohibition) established by Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine of 3 March 2022 No. 187;

- the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal, which violates the public policy of Ukraine, will lead to negative consequences both for the State of Ukraine as a whole and directly for the activities of JSC “NNEGC “Energoatom” in the Integrated Power System of Ukraine, on whose stable operation the well-being, stability and security of both citizens and the state as a whole depend;

- the court did not fully clarify the circumstances relevant to the case as regards the confirmation of the legal aid costs of InWest Impex s.r.o. and the existence of grounds for recovering such costs from JSC “NNEGC “Energoatom”;

- the legal aid costs claimed are disproportionate to: the complexity of the case and the scope of the work performed (services rendered) by the attorney; the time spent by the attorney on the performance of the relevant work (rendering of services); the value of the claim and/or the significance of the case for the party, including the impact of the outcome of the case on the reputation of the party or public interest in the case;

- the preparation of an application for recognition and grant of leave to enforce an award of the ICAC at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry is not complex and does not require significant time for either legal or technical work, as it does not require additional study and analysis of the legislation of Ukraine and judicial practice;

- case No. 13/2025 is not burdened with a significant amount of evidence. All the evidence without exception on which the claims of the application are based is in the possession of InWest Impex s.r.o. as a party (supplier) under the contract; therefore, that evidence was not collected by its representative and did not require additional study, and accordingly the preparation for the consideration of this case is not complex either;

- InWest Impex s.r.o. did not submit the documents provided for by Articles 134 and 137 of the CPC for determining the amount of legal aid costs, and the court’s partial grant of the claim of InWest Impex s.r.o. for recovery from JSC “NNEGC “Energoatom” of legal aid costs in the amount of EUR 200.00 is unfounded.

IV. Generalised arguments and objections of the other participants in the case

7. On 2 April 2026, the representative of InWest Impex s.r.o. filed a response to the appeal, in which she set out the following reasons for dismissing the appeal:

- there are no grounds whatsoever for setting aside the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal of 3 February 2026, still less for refusing the application for recognition and grant of leave to enforce the award of the ICAC at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry of 9 July 2025 in case No. 13/2025;

- the Kyiv Court of Appeal examined in full all the circumstances considered in the case and gave them a reasoned legal assessment. Accordingly, the arguments put forward by JSC “NNEGC “Energoatom”, both during the consideration of the application and in the appeal, are inappropriate, and the conduct of JSC “NNEGC “Energoatom” indicates merely a desire not to perform its own obligations;

- all the grounds set out by JSC “NNEGC “Energoatom” in this case have already been repeatedly refuted in view of settled judicial practice;

- the arguments set out in the appeal are wholly unsubstantiated and unproven and therefore cannot constitute grounds for setting aside the contested ruling;

- already at the stage of consideration of the case at the ICAC at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the arguments of JSC “NNEGC “Energoatom” concerning a violation of public policy were refuted;

- given that the arbitral award extends only to JSC “NNEGC “Energoatom”, the disputed legal relations within the scope of the case are based on the agreement of the parties, the content of the contract does not reveal the application of a rule of law of a foreign state that contradicts and conflicts with the current civil legislation of Ukraine, and the award of international commercial arbitration does not create for the debtor an obligation to pay for anything unlawful or immoral and does not indicate a breach of the budget legislation of Ukraine, it may be asserted that the award of the ICAC at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry of 9 July 2025 in case No. 13/2025 does not violate the public policy of Ukraine;

- the case file does not contain, and JSC “NNEGC “Energoatom” has not submitted, evidence confirming that the award of 9 July 2025 in case No. 13/2025 recovered a debt in favour of a legal entity with foreign investments or a foreign enterprise of the aggressor state, or that the actual recipient of payments, claims and income resulting from the compulsory enforcement of that award will be a legal entity of the aggressor country;

- during martial law, JSC “NNEGC “Energoatom” may make a settlement (currency transaction) for the products (subject to compliance with the procedure for such settlement) by obtaining a separate permit of the National Bank of Ukraine;

- when deciding on the recognition and grant of leave to enforce an award of international commercial arbitration, the court may not assess its correctness on the merits or make any changes to its content, but only verifies compliance with the time limits for filing the application, compliance with the requirements of procedural law as to its form and content, and the existence of circumstances that may constitute grounds for refusing the application. The burden of proving the existence of grounds for refusing recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award lies on the party objecting to the application of the award creditor;

- the bank documents clearly confirm the crediting of funds to the account of the attorneys’ association; therefore, the reality of the legal aid costs has been proven.

8. On 4 May 2026, the representative of JSC “NNEGC “Energoatom” filed objections to the response of InWest Impex s.r.o., in which he stated the following:

- the position of JSC “NNEGC “Energoatom” as to the existence of grounds for challenging the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal is set out in detail in the appeal;

- the assertions of InWest Impex s.r.o. that there are no grounds for setting aside the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal are unsubstantiated and unproven;

- the contested award of the ICAC at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry of 9 July 2025 in case No. 13/2025 contravenes public policy, namely the recognition and grant of leave to enforce that award under the conditions of martial law imposed in Ukraine;

- during the consideration of the case, InWest Impex s.r.o., notwithstanding the requests of JSC “NNEGC “Energoatom”, did not provide information on settlements for the products with LLC “Tanais”, which is registered in the rf.

V. Procedural history

9. On 11 March 2026, the representative of JSC “NNEGC “Energoatom” filed with the Supreme Court an appeal against the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal of 3 February 2026.

10. By ruling of 13 March 2026, the appeal was left without progress.

11. By ruling of 26 March 2026, the time limit for appeal was renewed and appellate proceedings in the case were opened.

12. The case file was received by the Supreme Court on 10 April 2026.

13. By ruling of 29 May 2026, the preparatory actions were completed and the case was set down for consideration in open court hearing.

VI. Position of the parties in the court of appeal

14. At the court hearing, the representative of JSC “NNEGC “Energoatom” supported the arguments of the appeal and requested that it be allowed.

15. The representative of InWest Impex s.r.o. at the court hearing pointed to the unfoundedness of the arguments of the appeal and requested that it be dismissed on the grounds set out in the response to the appeal.

VII. Established circumstances of the case

16. On 29 June 2021, InWest Impex s.r.o. (supplier) and State Enterprise “NNEGC “Energoatom” (buyer) concluded goods supply contract No. 53-121-01-21-100390, under the terms of which the supplier undertook to supply, and the buyer to accept and pay for, the goods. The price of the goods is EUR 109,724.00 excluding VAT. The delivery period for the goods is June-August 2021. The manufacturer of the goods is LLC “Tanais”, Volgodonsk, russia.

17. Clause 10 of the said contract provides for the settlement of possible disputes, namely:

“10.2 All disputes that may arise out of this contract or in connection with the contract shall be resolved by the Parties through negotiations.

10.3 A pre-trial procedure for the settlement of disputes between the Parties is mandatory.

10.3 All disputes, disagreements or claims arising out of or in connection with this contract, including with respect to its conclusion, interpretation, performance, breach, termination or invalidity, shall be subject to resolution at the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry in accordance with its Rules.

10.4 The law governing this contract and applicable to it is the substantive law of Ukraine.”

18. According to the data of the Unified State Register of Legal Entities, Natural Person-Entrepreneurs and Public Associations, on 11 January 2024 an entry was made on the termination of State Enterprise “NNEGC “Energoatom” and the state registration of JSC “NNEGC “Energoatom”, which is the legal successor of State Enterprise “NNEGC “Energoatom”.

19. In connection with the improper performance of the terms of the goods supply contract of 29 June 2021 No. 53-121-01-21-100390, on 23 January 2025 InWest Impex s.r.o. filed with the ICAC at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry a statement of claim against JSC “NNEGC “Energoatom” for recovery of the debt for goods supplied.

20. By the award of the ICAC at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry of 9 July 2025 in case No. 13/2025, JSC “NNEGC “Energoatom” was ordered to pay to InWest Impex s.r.o. EUR 109,724.00 of principal debt for goods supplied, EUR 8,342.04 of 3% per annum and EUR 5,361.58 in reimbursement of arbitration fee costs, in total EUR 123,427.62. The proceedings in the part concerning the recovery from JSC “NNEGC “Energoatom” of annual interest in the amount of EUR 748.52 were terminated in connection with the withdrawal by InWest Impex s.r.o. of those claims. The arbitration fee in the amount of EUR 33.99 was borne by the claimant. The claim for recovery from the respondent of the claimant’s legal aid costs in the amount of EUR 1,400.00 was refused.

21. According to the certificate of the ICAC at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry of 1 August 2025, addressed to the competent court at the place of enforcement of the award, the award of the ICAC at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry of 9 July 2025 in case No. 13/2025, pursuant to Article 32 of the Law of Ukraine “On International Commercial Arbitration”, is final and entered into legal force from the date of its rendering, 9 July 2025.

VIII. Position of the Supreme Court

22. In the disputed legal relations, the Supreme Court reviews the contested court decision on appeal in accordance with Article 24(2) and Article 351(2) of the CPC and reaches the following conclusions.

23. Pursuant to part one of [Article] 263 of the CPC, a court decision must be based on the principles of the rule of law and be lawful and reasoned.

24. The ruling of the court of first instance complies with these requirements of the law.

25. A generalisation of the arguments of the appeal (see paragraph 6) shows that the main arguments are the following:

- the court groundlessly recognised and granted leave to enforce the award of the ICAC at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry;

- the court of first instance did not verify compliance with public policy;

- there are no grounds for recovering legal aid costs from JSC “NNEGC “Energoatom”.

26. In answering these arguments, the Supreme Court notes the following.

27. Pursuant to 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 written application to the competent court, shall be enforced subject to the provisions of this Article and Article 36.

28. Recognition and grant of leave to enforce an award of international commercial arbitration means the extension of the legal force of such award to the territory of Ukraine and the application of means of compulsory enforcement in the manner established by the CPC.

29. The procedure for the consideration and determination of an application for recognition and grant of leave to enforce an award of international commercial arbitration is set out in Chapter 3 of Section IX “Recognition and enforcement of decisions of foreign courts and international commercial arbitrations in Ukraine, grant of leave for compulsory enforcement of decisions of arbitral tribunals” of the CPC.

30. Pursuant to Article 474 of the CPC, an award of 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 consent to be bound by which has been given by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. Where the recognition and enforcement of an award of international commercial arbitration depends on the principle of reciprocity, it is deemed to exist unless proven otherwise.

31. The formal requirements for the documents to be submitted by the interested party for the enforcement of arbitral awards are set out in Article IV of the New York Convention, Article 35(2) of the Law of Ukraine “On International Commercial Arbitration” and Article 476 of the CPC.

32. Under Article V of the New York Convention, Article 478 of the CPC and Article 36 of the Law of Ukraine “On International Commercial Arbitration”, the court refuses recognition and grant of leave to enforce an award of international commercial arbitration if: 1) at the request of the party against which it is invoked, if that party furnishes to the court proof that: (a) one of the parties to the arbitration agreement was under some incapacity; or that agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it or, failing any indication thereon, under the law of the state where the award was made; or (b) the party against which the award was made was not given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable for valid reasons to present its explanations; or (c) the award was made in respect of a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the arbitration agreement, or contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement; provided, however, that if the decisions on matters covered by the arbitration agreement can be separated from those not so covered, that part of the arbitral award which contains decisions on matters covered by the arbitration agreement may be recognised and enforced; or (d) the composition of the international commercial arbitration or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties or, failing such agreement, was not in accordance 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 suspended by a court of the state in which, or under the law of which, it was made; or 2) if 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) the recognition and enforcement of that arbitral award would contravene the public policy of Ukraine.

33. The Supreme Court has drawn attention to the fact that, when deciding on the recognition and grant of leave to enforce an award of international commercial arbitration, the court may not assess its correctness on the merits or make any changes to its content, but only verifies compliance with the time limits for filing the application, compliance with the requirements of procedural law as to its form and content, and the existence of circumstances that may constitute grounds for refusing the application.

The burden of proving the existence of grounds for refusing recognition and enforcement of an award of an international arbitration court lies on the party objecting to the application of the award creditor.

An unfounded refusal to grant leave for compulsory enforcement of an award of an international commercial arbitration court amounts to blocking such award and would have the character of an artificial regulatory barrier, which from the standpoint of international law is absolutely impermissible. Such blocking would not only fail to correspond to the purposes of international arbitration but would also violate the legitimate rights that the arbitral award may in fact confer on the award creditor in other countries (see the resolution of the Supreme Court of 10 May 2025 in case No. 824/155/24).

34. A refusal to recognise and grant leave for compulsory enforcement of an arbitral award in the territory of Ukraine would violate Article 1(1) of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and would constitute an interference with the award creditor’s right of property in the awarded funds (judgment in the case of “Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece” of 9 December 1994, Series A, No. 301-B).

35. The court has established that the award of the ICAC at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry of 9 July 2025 in case No. 13/2025 has entered into force and is subject to enforcement. In applying to the court for recognition and grant of leave to enforce that award, InWest Impex s.r.o. complied with the requirements of the procedural law of Ukraine. There are no grounds provided for by Article 478 of the CPC for refusing recognition and grant of leave to enforce the award of the ICAC at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

36. In view of the foregoing, the panel of judges considers that the Kyiv Court of Appeal reached a well-founded conclusion to grant the application of InWest Impex s.r.o.

37. As regards the arguments of the appeal concerning a violation of the public policy of Ukraine, the Supreme Court emphasises that the public policy of any country includes fundamental principles and foundations of justice and morality which the state wishes to protect even where this has no direct bearing on the state itself; rules ensuring the fundamental political, social and economic interests of the state (public policy rules); and the duty of the state to comply with its obligations towards other states and international organisations. These are the immutable principles that express the stability of the international system, in particular the sovereignty of the state, non-interference in the internal affairs of states, ensuring territorial integrity, and the like.

The public policy exception as a ground for setting aside an award of international commercial arbitration is a mechanism that enshrines the priority of state interests over private ones and protects social relations from negative influences on them. That is, the legal concept of public policy exists in order to protect the state from foreign arbitral awards that violate the fundamental principles of fairness and justice in force in the state. These provisions are intended to establish a legal barrier in the way of decisions adopted contrary to the fundamental procedural and substantive principles on which public policy rests (see the resolution of the Supreme Court of 10 October 2024 in case No. 824/33/24).

38. The legal concept of public policy exists in order to protect the state from foreign arbitral awards that violate the fundamental principles of fairness and justice in force in the state. These provisions are intended to establish a legal barrier in the way of decisions adopted contrary to the cardinal procedural and substantive principles on which public and state order rests. They are also designed to prevent the possibility of recognition and grant of leave to enforce awards connected with corruption or impermissible ignorance on the part of arbitrators.

39. At the same time, one of the new aspects of public policy in Ukraine is sanctions regulation resulting from the armed aggression of the rf against Ukraine.

40. Pursuant to Article 47(1) of the Law of Ukraine of 23 June 2005 No. 2709-IV “On Private International Law”, the law applicable to a contract under the provisions of this section covers the validity of the contract, the interpretation of the contract, the rights and obligations of the parties, the performance of the contract, the consequences of non-performance or improper performance of the contract, the termination of the contract, the consequences of invalidity of the contract, and the assignment of claims and transfer of debt under the contract.

41. Pursuant to Article 627 of the Civil Code of Ukraine (the “CC”), the parties are free to conclude a contract, choose a counterparty and determine the terms of the contract, taking into account the requirements of this Code, other acts of civil legislation, business customs, and the requirements of reasonableness and fairness.

42. A contract is binding on the parties for performance (Article 692 of the CC).

43. The court has established that the award of the ICAC at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry of 9 July 2025 in case No. 13/2025 resolved the issue of recovery from JSC “NNEGC “Energoatom” in favour of InWest Impex s.r.o. of funds in connection with non-performance of the terms of the goods supply contract signed and agreed by the parties, which has not been declared invalid by a court and is therefore binding on the parties.

44. The award does not create for the debtor an obligation to pay for anything unlawful, does not indicate a breach of budget legislation, and concerns the manner of performance of obligations that arose between the participants in this case on the basis of the contract concluded between them in the sphere of commercial legal relations.

45. Under the Law of Ukraine of 14 August 2014 No. 1644-VII “On Sanctions” and the decision of the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine of 23 March 2021 “On the application, cancellation and amendment of personal special economic and other restrictive measures (sanctions)”, put into effect by Decree of the President of Ukraine of 23 March 2021 No. 109/2021, no personal special economic and other restrictive measures (sanctions) have been applied to InWest Impex s.r.o. (Czech Republic) as the supplier of products under the concluded supply contract.

46. Pursuant to paragraph 1 of Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine of 3 March 2022 No. 187 “On ensuring the protection of national interests in respect of future claims of the State of Ukraine in connection with the military aggression of the russian federation” (“Resolution No. 187”), relied upon by the applicant, in order to ensure the protection of national interests in respect of future claims of the State of Ukraine in connection with the military aggression of the russian federation, a moratorium (prohibition) was established, pending the adoption and entry into force of a Law of Ukraine regulating relations involving persons connected with the aggressor state, on: 1) the performance, including compulsory performance, of monetary and other obligations whose creditors (award creditors) are the russian federation or the following persons (“persons connected with the aggressor state”): citizens of the russian federation, except those lawfully residing in the territory of Ukraine; legal entities established and registered under the legislation of the russian federation; legal entities established and registered under the legislation of Ukraine whose ultimate beneficial owner, member or participant (shareholder) holding a share of 10 or more percent in the authorised capital is the russian federation, a citizen of the russian federation, except one lawfully residing in the territory of Ukraine, or a legal entity established and registered under the legislation of the russian federation; legal entities formed under the legislation of a foreign state whose ultimate beneficial owner, member or participant (shareholder) holding a share of 10 or more percent in the authorised capital is the russian federation, a citizen of the russian federation, except one lawfully residing in the territory of Ukraine, or a legal entity established and registered under the legislation of the russian federation, in the case of performance of obligations towards them at the expense of funds provided for in the state budget.

47. InWest Impex s.r.o. is a company incorporated and registered under the laws of the Czech Republic, and the Supreme Court has no information that its ultimate beneficial owners include the state of the rf or its citizens.

48. At the same time, Resolution No. 187 addresses the imposition of a moratorium on the performance of monetary and other obligations pending the adoption and entry into force of a Law of Ukraine regulating relations involving persons connected with the aggressor state, which is not a ground for refusing recognition and grant of leave to enforce an award of international commercial arbitration, the list of which is set out in Article 478 of the CPC.

49. Should circumstances be established indicating that

InWest Impex s.r.o. is connected with the aggressor state or with legal entities registered under the laws of the rf, or with its citizens, enforcement of the award of the ICAC at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of 9 July 2025 in case No. 13/2025 may be suspended at the stage of its enforcement.

50. As regards the arguments of the appeal that the products supplied under the supply contract were manufactured by a legal entity, LLC “Tanais” (Volgodonsk, russia), the Supreme Court notes that JSC “NNEGC “Energoatom” has not submitted evidence confirming that the funds for the goods supplied will subsequently be transferred to the manufacturer of the goods, an enterprise established and registered under the legislation of the rf.

51. At the same time, the award of the ICAC at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry of 9 July 2025 in case No. 13/2025 established that the delivery of the products manufactured by LLC “Tanais”, which are the subject of the goods supply contract of 29 June 2021, was effected on 13 January 2022, before the introduction of martial law in Ukraine.

52. Pursuant to paragraph 14 of Resolution of the National Bank of Ukraine of 24 February 2022 No. 18, authorised institutions are prohibited from carrying out, on behalf of clients, cross-border transfers of currency values from Ukraine, except where they are carried out on the basis of separate permits (decisions) of the National Bank of Ukraine adopted on the basis of applications of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, ministries and other state bodies of Ukraine.

53. Therefore, during martial law, JSC “NNEGC “Energoatom” may make a settlement (currency transaction) for the products (subject to compliance with the procedure for such settlement) by obtaining a separate permit of the National Bank of Ukraine (see the resolutions of the Supreme Court of 22 June 2023 in case No. 824/103/22, of 5 October 2023 in case No. 824/3/23, and of 25 July 2024 in case No. 824/49/23, in which the debtor was also JSC “NNEGC “Energoatom”).

54. In view of the foregoing, the circumstances established by the award of the ICAC at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry of 9 July 2025 in case No. 13/2025 do not concern the public, economic and social foundations of the State of Ukraine; the said award was rendered in a dispute contemplated by the arbitration agreement concerning obligations that arose in 2021 and were performed by the supplier in January 2022; therefore, enforcement of the said award does not contravene the public policy of Ukraine, its independence, integrity, autonomy and inviolability, or constitutional rights, freedoms and guarantees.

55. This arbitral award was rendered exclusively in respect of the debtor as a separate legal entity and an independent participant in commercial transactions; accordingly, the award extends only to the debtor.

56. In addition, the disputed legal relations within the scope of the case are based on the agreement of the parties, and the content of the contract does not reveal the application of a rule of law of a foreign state that contradicts and conflicts with the current civil legislation of Ukraine.

57. The Supreme Court also takes into account that the fact of military aggression against Ukraine is confirmed by a number of documents of international organisations and by acts of the domestic legislation of Ukraine. At the same time, the case file does not contain, and JSC “NNEGC “Energoatom” has not submitted, evidence confirming that the arbitral award of 9 July 2025 in case No. 13/2025 recovered a debt in favour of a legal entity with foreign investments or a foreign enterprise of the aggressor state, or that the actual recipient of payments, claims and income resulting from the compulsory enforcement of the said award will be a legal entity of the aggressor country or its citizen.

58. The functions of JSC “NNEGC “Energoatom” in ensuring the safe operation and enhancing the efficiency of nuclear power plants and uninterrupted electricity supply are extremely important for the state and the population, especially at the present stage. At the same time, the performance of these functions cannot be a ground for releasing JSC “NNEGC “Energoatom” from the performance of its obligations towards counterparties to pay the price of goods supplied.

59. An unfounded refusal to recognise and grant leave for compulsory enforcement of the arbitral award in the territory of Ukraine would result in a violation of the applicants’ right to property (the awarded sums of money payable to the applicants on the basis of a final and binding arbitral award) within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

60. Since JSC “NNEGC “Energoatom” had already advanced arguments that the recognition and enforcement of the award of the ICAC at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry of 9 July 2025 in case No. 13/2025 violates public policy during the consideration by the court of first instance of the application of InWest Impex s.r.o. (Czech Republic) for recognition and grant of leave to enforce it, that court gave them a reasoned assessment in the ruling of 3 February 2026 rendered upon the consideration of the application.

61. Although the reasoning part of the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal of 3 February 2026 does not contain a reference to the provisions of the New York Convention, the conclusion that the arguments of JSC “NNEGC “Energoatom” were erroneous was formulated by the court in accordance with the provisions of Article 478(1) of the CPC and Article 36(1) of the Law of Ukraine “On International Commercial Arbitration”, which reproduce the content of the rule of Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention.

62. In addition, the Supreme Court has repeatedly pointed out that the legal norms of the Constitution of Ukraine, the Law of Ukraine “On International Commercial Arbitration” and the norms of the CPC, which establish the principle of mandatory enforcement of an award of the ICAC at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry provided that the applicant complies with the requirements of Articles 475, 476 of the CPC and there are no conditions provided for by law for refusing leave to enforce that award, have higher legal force than the provisions of Resolution No. 187 and Resolution of the National Bank of Ukraine of 24 February 2022 No. 18 “On the operation of the banking system during the period of introduction of martial law”; therefore, the said resolutions cannot be a ground for the debtor’s evasion of the performance of obligations under the concluded contract and of compliance with the award of the ICAC at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and do not indicate that the said award violates the public policy of Ukraine (see the resolutions of the Supreme Court of 1 February 2024 in case No. 824/113/23 and of 12 December 2024 in case No. 824/50/24).

63. As regards the arguments of the appeal that there are no grounds for recovering legal aid costs, this court emphasises that the Kyiv Court of Appeal ordered JSC “NNEGC “Energoatom” to pay to InWest Impex s.r.o. legal aid costs in the amount of EUR 200.00.

64. One of the basic principles of civil proceedings is the reimbursement of the court costs of the party in whose favour the court decision has been adopted (Article 2(3)(12) of the CPC).

65. Costs related to the consideration of a case include, in particular, the costs of professional legal aid (Article 133(3)(1) of the CPC).

66. The amount of the costs which a party has paid or is to pay in connection with the consideration of the case is established by the court on the basis of the evidence submitted by the parties (contracts, invoices, etc.) (Article 141(8), first paragraph, of the CPC).

67. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised that the composition and amount of the costs related to payment for legal aid form part of the subject of proof in the case. To confirm these circumstances, the court must be provided with the contract for the provision of legal aid (agency contract, contract for the provision of legal services, etc.) and documents evidencing payment of the fee and other expenses related to the provision of legal aid, executed in the manner established by law (receipt for a cash receipt order, payment order bearing the bank’s mark or other bank document, cash register receipts, travel certificates) (see, in particular, the resolution of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of 27 June 2018 in case No. 826/1216/16 (proceeding No. 11-562as18)).

68. In deciding on the allocation of court costs, the court must take into account: the complexity of the case and the scope of the work performed (services rendered) by the attorney; the time spent by the attorney on the performance of the relevant work (rendering of services); the connection of these costs with the consideration of the case; the reasonableness and proportionality of the subject matter of the dispute; the value of the claim and the significance of the case for the parties; the impact of its outcome on the reputation of the parties and the public interest in the case; the conduct of the party during the consideration of the case (abuse of procedural rights by the party or its representative, etc.); and the actions of the party in respect of pre-trial settlement of the case and amicable settlement of the dispute (see the additional resolution of the Joint Chamber of the Commercial Cassation Court of the Supreme Court of 18 February 2022 in case No. 925/1545/20).

69. In deciding on the allocation of court costs, the court must assess the costs to be compensated at the expense of the other party, taking into account both whether they were actually incurred and assessing their necessity (see the resolution of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of 12 May 2020 in case No. 904/4507/18 (proceeding No. 12-171hs19)).

70. The additional resolution of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of 19 February 2020 in case No. 755/9215/15-ts (proceeding No. 14-382tss19) states that the amount of the fee is determined solely by agreement between the attorney and the client, and the court is not entitled to interfere in these legal relations. At the same time, the current civil procedural legislation has defined the criteria that should be applied in determining the amount of legal aid costs.

71. A reduction of the amount of court costs for professional legal aid subject to allocation is possible only on the basis of a motion of the other party where, in its opinion, the requirements regarding the proportionality of the costs to the complexity and scope of the relevant work have not been met. The court, taking into account the principles of dispositivity and adversarial proceedings, has no right to decide on the reduction of the amount of court costs for professional legal aid subject to allocation of its own motion (see the resolution of the Supreme Court of 8 April 2020 in case No. 922/2685/19).

72. In applying to the court for recognition and grant of leave to enforce the award of the ICAC at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry in case No. 13/2025, InWest Impex s.r.o. stated that the preliminary estimated amount of court costs incurred or to be incurred in connection with the consideration of the case was EUR 500.00 (costs of professional legal aid).

73. It is apparent from the content of the award of the ICAC at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry of 9 July 2025 in case No. 13/2025 that the representative of InWest Impex s.r.o., attorney O. M. Khomyn, acts on the basis of the contract for the provision of legal aid of 9 January 2025 No. KMLF/142/2024 concluded between InWest Impex s.r.o. and the Attorneys’ Association “Law Firm “Kopus i Muliar”, and the warrant for the provision of legal aid of 22 January 2025, series AA No. 1532384.

74. Under the terms of the supplementary agreement of 20 October 2025 to the contract for the provision of legal aid of 9 January 2025 No. KMLF/142/2024, InWest Impex s.r.o. undertook to pay for the services of the Attorneys’ Association “Law Firm “Kopus i Muliar” in the amount of EUR 500.00.

75. Attorney O. M. Khomyn represented the interests of InWest Impex s.r.o. on the basis of a warrant issued by the Attorneys’ Association “Law Firm “Kopus i Muliar” of 18 November 2025.

76. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court has repeatedly noted that the court has the right to indicate in its court decision the recovery of a sum of money in foreign currency, in which it is then to be enforced (see, for example, the resolutions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of 4 July 2018 in case No. 761/12665/14-ts, of 16 January 2019 in case No. 373/2054/16-ts, and of 23 October 2019 in case No. 723/304/16-ts).

77. Where a fixed fee is established by contract, a party may prove the disproportionality of the costs, including but not limited to, without the detailed description of work (services rendered) indicating information on the time spent on the provision of legal aid. In particular, by referring to the disproportionality of the fixed fee to the complexity of the case, the value of the claim, the volume of materials in the case, the number of procedural documents prepared, the number of hearings, the duration of the consideration of the case by the court, and the like (see the resolution of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of 16 November 2022 in case No. 922/1964/21).

78. The panel of judges considers that the Kyiv Court of Appeal, having taken into account the arguments of the motion of JSC “NNEGC “Energoatom” as to the disproportionality of the amount of legal aid costs, and having regard to the number of procedural documents prepared, the number of court hearings and their duration, and to such principles of civil proceedings as reasonableness and fairness, reasonably awarded EUR 200.00 of legal aid costs.

79. The said amount of costs of professional legal aid meets the criterion of the reality of the legal services rendered, the reasonableness of their amount and their necessity, and the specific circumstances of the case, taking into account its complexity.

80. The arguments of the appeal that InWest Impex s.r.o. did not submit the documents provided for by Articles 134, 137 of the CPC for determining the amount of legal aid costs are unfounded. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court has emphasised that the reimbursement of reasonable, actual and justified costs of professional legal aid should not be limited for purely formalistic reasons of the absence, in the detailed description of work (services rendered), of information on the time spent on the provision of legal aid, where the parties to the contract have agreed on a fixed fee (see the resolution of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of 16 November 2022 in case No. 922/1964/21).

IX. Conclusions upon consideration of the appeal

81. The court of first instance adopted the court decision in compliance with the norms of substantive and procedural law; therefore, pursuant to Article 375 of the CPC, the appeal should be dismissed and the contested court decision upheld.

Guided by Articles 24, 259, 351, 367, 368, 374, 375, 381-384 of the CPC, the Supreme Court

RULED:

1. The appeal of Joint Stock Company “National Nuclear Energy Generating Company “Energoatom” is dismissed.

2. The ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal of 3 February 2026 is upheld.

3. The date of drawing up of the full court decision is 12 June 2026.

The resolution of the court of appeal enters into legal force from the date of its adoption, is final and is not subject to appeal.

Judges: P. I. Parkhomenko, D. A. Hudyma, Ye. V. Krasnoshchokov