Ruling of Supreme Court, Civil Cassation Court in the case 824/136/25 dated 8 September 2026

RULING

8 September 2026, Kyiv

case No. 824/136/25

proceedings No. 61-8471av26

The Supreme Court, composed of Judge of the Civil Cassation Court V. V. Serdiuk, having considered the applications of the representative of PERSON_1, attorney Olena Serhiivna Perepelynska, for participation in court hearings by videoconference outside the court premises

in the case on the application of PERSON_1 to set aside the award of the International Commercial Arbitration of 1 September 2025 rendered by the ad hoc Arbitral Tribunal composed of sole arbitrator Tetiana Slipachuk under the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) as revised on 15 September 2010 in the case “Iryna Kostiuk v. Andrii Kostiuk (Ukraine)”,

and on the application of PERSON_2 for recognition and grant of leave to enforce the award of the International Commercial Arbitration of 1 September

2025 rendered by sole arbitrator Tetiana Slipachuk under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 2010 in the case on the claim of PERSON_2 against PERSON_1 for recovery of debt under a share sale and purchase agreement,

ESTABLISHED:

On 3 December 2025, the representative of the debtor PERSON_1, A. K. Kozyrieva, PERSON_1 applied to the Kyiv Court of Appeal to set aside the award of the International Commercial Arbitration of 1 September 2025 rendered by the ad hoc Arbitral Tribunal composed of sole arbitrator

T. Slipachuk under the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) as revised on 15 September 2010 in the case “Iryna Kostiuk v. Andrii Kostiuk (Ukraine)”.

On 3 November 2025, the Kyiv Court of Appeal received the application of the creditor PERSON_2 for recognition and grant of leave to enforce the award of the International Commercial Arbitration of 1 September 2025 rendered by sole arbitrator Tetiana Slipachuk under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 2010 in the case on the claim of PERSON_2 against PERSON_1 for recovery of debt under a share sale and purchase agreement.

By its ruling of 28 January 2026, the Kyiv Court of Appeal joined the applications of PERSON_1 and PERSON_2 into a single proceeding, since both applications of the parties are based on the award of the International Commercial Arbitration of 1 September 2025 rendered by the ad hoc Arbitral Tribunal composed of sole arbitrator Tetiana Slipachuk under the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law as revised on 15 September 2010 in the case “Iryna Kostiuk v. Andrii Kostiuk (Ukraine)”. At the same time, both under the application for recognition and grant of leave to enforce the ICAC award and under the application to set aside the ICAC award, the same circumstances are to be examined and established, since the grounds for refusing recognition and grant of leave to enforce an ICAC award (Article 478 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine) and the grounds for setting aside an ICAC award (Article 459 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine)

are analogous.

By its ruling of 25 May 2026, the Kyiv Court of Appeal dismissed the application of PERSON_1 to set aside the award of the International Commercial Arbitration of 1 September 2025.

It granted the application of PERSON_2 for recognition and grant of leave to enforce the award of the International Commercial Arbitration of 1 September 2025.

It recognised and granted leave to enforce the award of the International Commercial Arbitration of 1 September 2025 rendered by the ad hoc Arbitral Tribunal composed of sole arbitrator Tetiana Slipachuk under the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law as revised on 15 September 2010 in the case “Iryna Kostiuk v. Andrii Kostiuk (Ukraine)” on the recovery from PERSON_1 in favour of PERSON_2 of debt under a share sale and purchase agreement in the amount of EUR 1,172,548.60 and arbitration costs in the amount of USD 12,193.85.

It issued a writ of execution for the compulsory enforcement in the territory of Ukraine of the award of the International Commercial Arbitration of 1 September 2025 rendered by the ad hoc Arbitral Tribunal composed of sole arbitrator T. Slipachuk under the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law as revised on 15 September 2010, in the case “Iryna Kostiuk v. Andrii Kostiuk

(Ukraine)”, on the recovery from PERSON_1 in favour of PERSON_2 of debt under a share sale and purchase agreement in the amount of EUR 1,172,548.60 and arbitration costs in the amount of USD 12,193.85.

It recovered from PERSON_1 in favour of PERSON_2 the costs of paying the court fee in the amount of UAH 605.60.

On 24 June 2026, PERSON_1, on whose behalf attorneys A. K. Kozyrieva, D. V. Vasylieva and O. S. Perepelynska act, applied via the “Electronic Court” subsystem to the Supreme Court with an appeal against the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal of 25 May 2026 in this case, issued by it as a court of first instance, in which he requested that the contested judicial decision be set aside and that a new judicial decision be adopted in this case granting the application of PERSON_1 to set aside the award of the International Commercial Arbitration of 1 September 2025, setting aside the award of the International Commercial Arbitration of 1 September 2025, and refusing the application of PERSON_2 for recognition and grant of leave to enforce the award of the International Commercial Arbitration of 1 September 2025.

By its ruling of 8 July 2026, the Supreme Court opened appellate proceedings in this case and requisitioned from the Kyiv Court of Appeal the materials of case

No. 824/136/25.

In July 2026, the materials of the civil case were received by the Supreme Court.

By its ruling of 6 August 2026, the Supreme Court completed the preparatory actions in the case and scheduled the case for hearing in an open court session on 17 September 2026 at 11:00 with notice to the participants in the case.

On 3 September 2025, via the “Electronic Court” system, the Supreme

Court received an application of the representative of PERSON_1, attorney

O. S. Perepelynska, for participation in court hearings by videoconference outside the court premises, registered under incoming No. 27716/0/220-26 of 3 September 2026.

On 7 September 2025, by post, the Supreme

Court received an application of the representative of PERSON_1, attorney

O. S. Perepelynska, for participation in court hearings by videoconference outside the court premises, registered under incoming No. 27994/0/220-26 of 7 September 2026.

The applications of PERSON_1, on whose behalf attorney O. S. Perepelynska acts, for participation in court hearings by videoconference outside the court premises are identical in content to one another.

In the applications, the representative of PERSON_1, attorney O. S. Perepelynska, requested permission to participate in the court hearing in case No. 824/136/25 (proceedings No. 61-8471av26) scheduled for 17 September 2026 at 11

00 by videoconference outside the court premises using the “EasyCon” software. In addition, the applicant requested that all court hearings in case No. 824/136/25 (proceedings

No. 61-8471av26) be held by videoconference outside the court premises using the “EasyCon” software.

Pursuant to Article 212(1) of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, a participant in the case or his or her representative has the right to participate in a court hearing by videoconference outside the court premises or on the premises of another court, provided that the court has the relevant technical capability, which the court indicates in the ruling on the opening of proceedings in the case, except where the appearance of that participant in the case at the court hearing has been deemed mandatory by the court.

Article 212(3) of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine provides that the judge (judge-rapporteur) considers the application of a participant in the case or his or her representative for participation in a court hearing by videoconference outside the court premises or on the premises of another court without notifying the participants in the case. A ruling is issued based on the results of the consideration of the application.

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of clause 45 of the Regulation on the Procedure for the Functioning of Certain Subsystems (Modules) of the Unified Judicial Information and Telecommunication System, approved by the decision of the High Council of Justice of 17 August 2021

No. 1845/0/15-21 (hereinafter, the Regulation), the videoconferencing subsystem provides participants in the case, in particular, with the possibility to participate in a court hearing by videoconference outside the court premises using their electronic cabinet and their own technical means.

To participate in a court hearing by videoconference, a participant in the case must register in advance in the electronic cabinet. A participant in the case must also check his or her own technical means for compliance with the technical requirements set out in the User Manual of the videoconferencing subsystem for working with the videoconferencing system (clause 49 of the Regulation).

The User Manual of the videoconferencing (VCC) subsystem is posted on the UJITS user technical support web page at https://wiki.court.gov.ua.

The Civil Cassation Court within the Supreme Court has the technical capability to hold a court hearing by videoconference (using the software available at vkz.court.gov.ua) on the specified date and at the specified time; therefore, the applications of the representative of PERSON_1, attorney O. S. Perepelynska, for participation in court hearings by videoconference outside the court premises should be granted.

Guided by Articles 212, 260 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, the Supreme Court

RULED:

To grant the applications of the representative of PERSON_1, attorney Olena Serhiivna Perepelynska, for participation in court hearings by videoconference outside the court premises.

To ensure the participation of the representative of PERSON_1, attorney Olena Serhiivna Perepelynska, in the court hearing scheduled for 17 September 2026 at 11:00, as well as in subsequent court hearings, if scheduled, by videoconference outside the court premises using her own technical means.

To inform the participants in the case that, pursuant to Article 212(4) of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine and clause 46 of the Regulation, the risks of technical impossibility of participating in a videoconference outside the court premises, interruption of the connection and the like are borne by the participant in the case.

A copy of this ruling shall be sent to the participants in the case.

The ruling enters into legal force from the moment of its signing and is not subject to appeal.

The ruling is not subject to appeal.

Judge V. V. Serdiuk