As is characteristic for civil law jurisdictions, Ukrainian law consists of legislative acts enacted by the Parliament of Ukraine and the international treaties that Ukraine is a party to, which upon ratification become part of the national legislation. According to the Constitution of Ukraine, in cases where a conflict arises between the provisions of international treaties and national law, the provisions of the former shall prevail. The only exception is in cases of a conflict with the Constitution, in which case the provision of the Constitution always takes precedence over any other norms contained either in the international treaties or in the national legislation.2

The Ukrainian legislation applicable to international arbitration consists of the International Commercial Arbitration Act (ICA Act),3 the Code of Civil Procedure of Ukraine (CCPU),4 and the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine (CPCU).5 Where the ICA Act is a key source of regulation, the CCPU applies to setting aside procedures6 and the recognition and enforcement of awards before the state courts,7 and court-ordered measures in support of international arbitration.8 In addition, the CPCU sets forth a list of non-arbitrable disputes,9 and envisages a presumption of validity and enforceability of an arbitration agreement according to which any inaccuracies in the text of an arbitration agreement shall be interpreted by a state court in favour of the agreement's validity and enforceability.10

Subject to minor deviations, the ICA Act is a verbatim adoption of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Arbitration (1985) (Model Law), as amended in 2006, and applies to international commercial arbitration proceedings seated in Ukraine. Certain provisions of the ICA Act equally apply to arbitration proceedings and arbitral awards made abroad, such as the authority of the state courts to refer parties to arbitration unless an arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed; and judicial measures in support of arbitration, as well as the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards and the grounds for refusing the same.11

Major international arbitration instruments to which Ukraine is a signatory, such as the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention 1958), the European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration (Geneva Convention 1961), the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States (ICSID Convention 1965), also constitute part of the legal framework applicable to international arbitration in Ukraine. Additionally, investment arbitration issues may fall within the scope of the Energy Charter Treaty (1994) and bilateral investment treaties, the number of which in 2018 exceeded 65.

Ukrainian legislation regulates international and domestic arbitration differently.

Corresponding to the Model Law, the ICA Act provides that disputes resulting from contractual and non-contractual civil relationships arising during the course of foreign trade and other forms of international business relations, provided that the place of business of at least one of the parties is located outside of Ukraine, may be referred to international arbitration.

In addition to the place of business criteria as stated in the Model Law, the ICA Act clarifies that disputes involving Ukrainian entities with foreign investment, or international associations and organisations established in the territory of Ukraine, whether in agreement among themselves or their participants, as well as Ukrainian legal entities and individuals, may be referred to international commercial arbitration.12 This provides a legal ground to resolve under international arbitration disputes that otherwise may qualify as domestic.

In turn, disputes between Ukrainian parties, whether legal entities or individuals (i.e., domestic arbitration cases), fall within the scope of the Law of Ukraine on Arbitration Tribunals (Domestic Arbitration Act). The provisions of the Domestic Arbitration Act do not follow the Model Law, and there are many examples evidencing distinctions between the regulation of international and domestic arbitrations. For instance, and unlike the ICA Act, the Domestic Arbitration Act expressly sets forth restrictions as to who is prohibited from acting as an arbitrator (e.g., judges of the general courts and the Constitutional Court), clarifies requirements as to the impartiality and independence of arbitrators, and provides for the liability of arbitrators in accordance with the applicable law or the parties' agreement. There is also a separate list of non-arbitrable disputes within the domestic arbitration legislation.

Similarly, where the CCPU and CPCU provide for the setting aside of awards in domestic arbitrations, the issuing enforcement orders and the taking of judicial measures in support of domestic arbitration, the respective procedures differ from the ones envisaged for international arbitrations. By way of example, grounds for setting a domestic arbitral award aside or for its enforcement under the CCPU are different from those for international arbitration awards.13

A major overhaul of the judiciary system in Ukraine took place in 2016, when a number of amendments were introduced to the legislation, in particular the Constitution, the Law of Ukraine 'On the Judicial System and the Status of Judges' and the Law of Ukraine 'On Bodies and Individuals Carrying out Enforcement of Judgments and Decisions of Other Bodies'.

Ukraine's judiciary system is organised according to the principles of territoriality, specialisation and instance differentiation. Upon the judiciary reform, the court system consists of local courts (circuit general, commercial and administrative courts), courts of appeal (circuit general, commercial and administrative courts) and the Supreme Court. As the highest court in the court system of Ukraine, the Supreme Court consists of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, the Cassation Administrative Court, the Cassation Commercial Court, the Cassation Criminal Court and the Cassation Civil Court.14

Also resulting from the judiciary reform, two specialised courts were established to deal with IP matters and corruption cases: the High Court on Intellectual Property and the High Anticorruption Court.

In the arbitration context, due to a number of significant amendments to the procedural laws, including the CCPU and the CPCU, that became effective 15 December 2017, major changes in support of international arbitration were implemented into the Ukrainian legislation. One was a simplification of the procedure for setting an award aside: according to the amended CCPU, an application for the annulment of an award shall be filed to the court of appeal at the seat of arbitration that is acting as the court of first instance, with a possibility of further review by the Supreme Court acting as a court of appellate instance. Similarly, a two-tier system is envisaged for the recognition and enforcement procedure for international arbitral awards, and an application for the recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award shall be brought before the Kiev Court of Appeal.15

Judicial measures in support of international arbitration, although available under the ICA Act even before the 2017 amendments to the legislation, were in practice rarely sought because of the absence of relevant procedural rules for them to be granted. After the reform, judicial measures in support of arbitration – for example, interim measures aimed at preserving evidence or assets – may be sought before a respective court of appeal at the location of the debtor, the evidence or the assets, or the place of arbitration.16 In addition, the court of appeal at the location of the evidence may order the production of such evidence upon a request of the arbitral tribunal or a party to the arbitral proceedings, subject to the approval of the tribunal.

Under the law, it is prohibited to establish extraordinary or special courts.17

The two permanent arbitral institutions considering international arbitration disputes and functioning on the territory of Ukraine are the International Commercial Arbitration Court (ICAC) and the Maritime Arbitration Commission, both at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (UCCI) and established in accordance with the ICA Act.

It is a time of change for Ukraine, including changes to international arbitration-related areas. The effects of the 2017 amendments to the procedural legislation (often referred to as the judicial reform) remain to be seen as the provisions find application in practice.

2017 saw the 25th anniversary of the establishment of the ICAC, marking a quarter of a century of administering over 11,000 cases and building a reputation in the dispute resolution market.18 The caseload of the ICAC grows every year, with 286 international cases being administrated in 2018.19 The majority of disputes administrated by the ICAC concern international sale and purchase agreements, and the delivery of goods (80 per cent of the caseload), followed by services agreements (12.5 per cent of its caseload).20 One of the benefits offered by the ICAC is time-efficient proceedings: it is reported that more than 80 per cent of cases are considered in less than three months.

In line with efforts to support diversity and equal representation in international arbitration, the ICAC reported that female arbitrators were involved in 41.7 per cent of the cases administered by the ICAC in 2017: 44.7 per cent of female arbitrators were appointed by the President of the UCCI, 45 per cent by the parties and 31.3 per cent by the two arbitrators appointed to an arbitration. Of the ICAC's recommended list of arbitrators, from which the potential candidates for appointment as an arbitrator should be selected, 26 per cent are female arbitrators.21

As previously mentioned, following the major legislation reform in December 2017, it remains to be seen how the amended provisions are being applied in practice in the pursuit of strengthening Ukraine's pro-arbitration approach and establishing helpful and clear mechanisms under the law. Certainly, as international arbitration gains greater popularity and the trust of Ukrainian users, having national legislation in support of arbitration in place and making it an effective dispute resolution mechanism are advantages.

In particular, the law now clearly sets out a pro-arbitration approach in interpreting arbitration agreements, where the courts can rely on the express CPCU provision to interpret any inaccuracies in the text of an arbitration agreement in favour of the agreement's validity and enforceability. In practice, this has not eliminated completely the issue of the depth of examination by the state courts of the validity and enforceability of arbitration agreements if such an issue has been raised before it.22 However, more certainty that an arbitration agreement will be honoured and enforced is now ensured under the law.

Similarly, the CPCU has been amended to mirror in principle the provisions of the ICA Act regarding the authority of a state court to leave a claim without consideration provided there is a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement but one of the parties has chosen to resort to litigation.23

Further, amendments to the legislation providing for a defined mechanism of judicial support for international arbitration, irrespective of the seat of arbitration, by means of interim measures and measures aimed at securing and obtaining evidence offer users the enhanced possibility to effectively pursue their claim.

International arbitration is now also available in Ukraine for an expanded scope of disputes, as the list of non-arbitrable disputes set forth in the CPCU has been amended to exclude the civil law aspects of competition, privatisation and public procurement contract disputes and corporate disputes provided there is an arbitration agreement between a legal entity and all its participants.

Finally, the trend of simplification has also found its way into international arbitration under Ukrainian law, with the procedure for, inter alia, setting an award aside and the recognition and enforcement of an award having been amended in part, allowing for a joint consideration of both applications with an aim to increase efficiency.24


Ukraine was in the spotlight quite often in 2018 for matters within the framework of international arbitration, and it is now time to observe the fruits of the implemented 2017 legislative reform. In addition to what has been referred to as a more pro-arbitration legislation, it is also important to note that the new composition of the Supreme Court of Ukraine, which now has justices with experience in international arbitration, results in a change of practice slowly but surely in a direction of suggesting more certainty with respect to issues arising out of international arbitration proceedings.

Besides the high-profile investment arbitration cases related to Crimea-based assets, Ukraine has been noted for its efforts to improve the international arbitration legal framework and the development of the international arbitration environment: these have earned Ukraine a nomination for the Global Arbitration Review awards 2019 as a jurisdiction that has made great progress in these matters.

i Developments affecting international arbitration

The 2017 reform of legislation affected, inter alia, provisions applicable to international arbitration. In particular, amendments to the CPCU and the CCPU, as well as other legislative acts related to international arbitration, have introduced new mechanisms or improved existing ones to ensure a pro-arbitration approach in Ukraine, and more efficient arbitral proceedings and the further recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards on the territory of Ukraine.

The most notable changes in the law that are particularly relevant in the context of international arbitration relate to the interpretation and establishment of the validity of arbitration agreements, the arbitrability of disputes and the powers of the national court to grant interim measures in support of international arbitration. These are addressed in more detail below.

The likelihood of imperfect arbitration clauses being upheld under Ukrainian law has increased with a clear pro-arbitration interpretation rule under which any uncertainties within an arbitration clause shall be interpreted in favour of the validity and enforceability of the arbitration agreement. Similarly, it has been clarified that arbitration agreements may be concluded by means of electronic communication.

Further, the list of disputes that can be resolved by means of arbitration has been expended and clarified. Originally, the issue of arbitrability of disputes has been regulated under the CCPU by means of setting forth a list of disputes, which fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the commercial court. Accordingly, unless a commercial dispute within the list fell under an exception, it could be considered exclusively by a commercial court. Currently, the exceptions provided in Article 22 the CCPU to the exclusive jurisdiction of commercial courts include disputes arising from corporate relations provided there is an arbitration agreement concluded between a legal entity and all of its participants (shareholders), civil law aspects of disputes arising out of privatisation and competition, and disputes arising out of public procurement contracts.

Additionally, the amended legislation provides for a variety of interim measures to be granted in support of arbitral proceedings, both during the process of a case being considered and once an award is made, such as:

  1. the security of assets;
  2. the preservation of evidence;
  3. a prohibition on taking action; or
  4. orders to undertake an action.

A non-exhaustive list of interim measures can be requested before a state court in support of arbitration; thus, the parties retain the discretion to tailor a request in this regard, and the justification for the same is found within the available legal framework. Unsurprisingly, the burden of proof rests on the party requesting that an interim measure be imposed. With the aim of offering more efficiency to parties opting for arbitration, the CPCU provides that an application for an interim measure in support of international arbitration shall be filed before the court of appeal at the seat of the arbitration, or at the seat of the respondent or its assets.

Noting the above evidence of the pro-arbitration approach strengthening in Ukraine as a result of the legislation amendments of 2017, arbitration remains differentiated from litigation not only by means of procedure, but also legal consequences. For instance, although an arbitral award is recognised to be final and binding, and not subject to an appeal, factual circumstances established in an arbitral award are to be proven in a general manner if considered before a state court. In contrast, and for comparison, factual circumstances established in a civil or commercial case shall not be proven again before a state court provided the case is between the same persons and entities or person and entity with regard to whom the circumstances in question had been previously established.

Finally, but importantly, legal provisions relevant for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards have been clarified to reflect the possibility of voluntary enforcement of an award, enforcement against amounts in a foreign currency and recovery of post-award interest. As peculiar as it may appear, until 2019, when the legislative amendments with respect to enforcement of post-award interest entered into force, there was a significant discussion in court practice with respect to who shall be authorised under the law to give relief in an amount of post-award interest, often resulting in a futile resolution for a creditor. To summarise, if an arbitral award provides for post-award interest set forth as a percentage of the total amount awarded, the state courts were uncertain how the calculation of the post-award interest should be conducted, often leaving it to an enforcement officer to perform the calculation, even though the latter is not expressly authorised to do so under the law. Fortunately, starting from January 2019, the CPCU unequivocally addressed what seemed to have been a legal lacuna.

In line with the wider digitalisation of the world, a judicial reform to increase the efficiency of the court system introduced an electronic court system, the single judicial information and telecommunication system, which will allow the conduct of court communications electronically and provide for greater transparency, as well as, naturally, the automation of processes within proceedings. As of May 2019, the system is still being tested and audited before its official launch and functioning in full.

Separately, and in addition to the mechanisms aimed at improving the dispute resolution procedure mentioned above, the reform of the court system and procedural legislation entailed also a reform of the legal profession in Ukraine. In the context of arbitration, it is important to note that as a general rule, there is no requirement under Ukrainian law to be admitted to the bar in order to practice law. However, starting from January 2019, only lawyers admitted to the bar have the right to appear before a court of any instance in Ukraine.

For Ukraine, being a civil law jurisdiction, judicial precedent in its pure meaning has been a foreign legal concept. Still, it is expressly provided under the CPCU and the CCPU that when selecting and applying legal provisions, the court shall take into account conclusions of the Supreme Court on the application of the respective provisions. Whereas practice remains different, precisely due to it being unclear whether rulings of the Supreme Court are mandatory or of an advisory nature, lower instance courts in prevailing majority tend to follow the practice of the Supreme Court.

To further improve the dispute resolution services offered at the ICAC, and to provide more clarity and transparency, the ICAC implemented an amended version of the Arbitration Rules, in force as of 1 January 2018. The new Rules introduce helpful mechanisms for conducting arbitral proceedings, such as interim measures, case management conferences, expedited arbitral proceedings, submission of evidence, and use of technology in the course of proceedings. In addition, they create more certainty with respect to some of the issues arising in practice, for instance joinder of third parties, procedural legal succession, and participation of witnesses and experts.

Among the novelties introduced in the new Rules is the scrutiny of draft arbitral awards, where upon review of a draft award the Secretary General of the ICAC may provide recommendations to an arbitral tribunal with respect to any instances of non-compliance of the draft award with the Rules, errors, omissions or typing errors.

One issue remaining unregulated is the funding of arbitral proceedings by a third-party funder. This is not directly reflected in the legislation or considered in court practice, leaving the window open to opportunities. From the experience of ICAC-administered arbitrations, it would not be contrary to the ICAC Rules for a third party to secure funding on behalf of and in the interest of a party to arbitration.

ii Arbitration developments in local courts

The interpretation of arbitration clauses has the potential to remain an area of court practice sparking interest notwithstanding a clear pro-arbitration approach under the law. For instance, in 2018 the question still remained as to whether opting for arbitration should be considered as the parties' waiver of the right to resort to the courts. In a 17 April 2018 ruling in Expobank CZ, AS v. Vilnogirske sklo, the Supreme Court concluded that the execution of an arbitration agreement does not constitute a waiver of the right to resort to a commercial court, which would be invalid under Ukrainian law since it reflects the party's choice of a preferred mechanism to protect its rights.25

Court practice with respect to granting interim measures is still to be developed regarding the relevant legal provisions introduced into the law comparatively recently. However, what can already be seen in the approach taken by the courts when considering requests for interim measures is the effort to strike a balance between the interests of the parties. For instance, in a ruling dated 17 September 2018 in case No. 125/2018, and without delving too deeply into the details of the case, the Kiev Court of Appeal considered the link between the underlying claim and the requested interim measure to establish whether the measure requested was justified, and the degree and nature of the impact the measure could reasonably have on the party against whom it was being requested (i.e., the proportionality of the same). Because the applicant failed to demonstrate the proportionality of the requested measure, which was a prohibition on making payments from bank accounts and disposing of all property, the Court found that the requested measure would unjustifiably disrupt the business activity of the other party, and refused to order the requested interim relief.26

In contrast, in a ruling of 24 September 2018 in SoftCommodities Trading Company SA v. Elan Soft LLP, the Supreme Court upheld the security of the claim and a counter security in relation to Grain and Feed Trade Association arbitration proceedings seated in London.27

With regard to the regulation of transactions in a foreign currency, in practice often issues arose with respect to a voluntary execution of an award in favour of a foreign creditor with the amounts in the foreign currency, as a party willing to comply with an award was obliged to furnish to a servicing bank proof of the recognition and enforcement of the award in Ukraine. As a result of the 2017 reform the procedure was simplified, and as evidenced by a Kiev Court of Appeal ruling dated 4 May 2018, the voluntary compliance of foreign arbitral awards may be ordered upon request.28

With respect to enforcement of post-award interest set forth in an arbitral award, on 15 May 2018 the Supreme Court made a ruling that ended the saga of the Nibulon SA v. Rise PJSC case.29 In essence, the Supreme Court resolved the debate as to the enforcement of post-award interest provided for in the arbitral award, notwithstanding that the express regulation under the CPCU was to enter into force only as of 1 January 2019, because from the perspective of the Supreme Court the legislator has already expressed how the respective legal matter is to be regulated, and a gap could be filled in principle before a specific procedural provision came into force.

The practice of the Ukrainian courts often evidences attempts of debtors under an arbitral award to avoid compliance with the award by initiating court proceedings for the invalidation of a contract, including an arbitration agreement contained therein. However, the Supreme Court has clarified that legal proceedings for the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award in Ukraine may not be suspended due to a litigation proceeding for the invalidation of the contract on the basis of and in relation to which the award was made.30 The reasoning of the Court is based on qualifying recognition and enforcement proceedings as a non-contentious civil matter that could be suspended only due to the consideration of a setting aside procedure of the award under consideration.

iii Investor–state disputes

As of May 2019, there is still a number of investment arbitration proceedings pending with regard to Ukrainian investments in Crimea that are pending resolution.31

2018 and the beginning of 2019 have been marked by further developments in Crimea-related investment arbitrations; awards in favour of Ukrainian investors in Crimea were issued in Everest Estate LLC et al v. the Russian Federation,32 Oschadbank v. Russian Federation,33 PJSC CB PrivatBank and Finance Company Finilon LLC v. Russia and Aeroport Belbek LLC and Mr Igor Kolomoisky v. Russia.34

In Ukraine, the Supreme Court ordered the enforcement of an arbitral award made in favour of Everest Estate and the 18 other claimants in an amount of US$159 million to be paid by Russia to the Ukrainian investors in Crimea.35 The debate around the enforcement of the award captured the attention of legal minds both in Ukraine and abroad, as the Court dealt first with a freezing order covering shares of three Russian state-owned banks – Vnesheconombank (VEB), Sberbank and VTB Bank – their Ukrainian subsidiaries and the assets of the respective subsidiaries, and subsequently with the attachment of the assets against which the arbitral award may be enforced. The Supreme Court ruling dealt with a variety of issues, and in particular:

  1. establishing the presence of Russian assets in the territory of Ukraine, including in Crimea, for the purposes of establishing jurisdiction to consider the application for enforcement;
  2. waiver by the Russian Federation of its sovereign immunity by way of an agreement to be bound by the bilateral investment treaty and the award made in accordance thereto; and
  3. attachment of the assets of the Russian Federation only, and not of the separate legal entities: that is, the shareholders in the Ukrainian subsidiaries.

Separately, the Naftogaz v. Gazprom Stockholm arbitration saga was finally resolved in 2018.36 On 28 February 2018, the arbitral tribunal ruled in favour of Naftogaz on most of the strategically important issues with respect to a gas transit contract. Naturally, Gazprom has challenged the findings of the arbitral tribunal before the Swedish court, with its resolution yet to be granted, whereas Naftogaz has initiated enforcement proceedings across jurisdictions including the Netherlands, the UK, Switzerland and Luxembourg.37

Foreign investors have also experienced a roller coaster in proceedings against Ukraine, with tribunals finding in turn in favour of both applicants and the state. Notably, a dispute between the Philip Morris tobacco group and the government of Ukraine was settled, which may have otherwise resulted in an investment claim against Ukraine.38

Towards the end of 2018, and after three years of litigation before the Ukrainian court seeking enforcement of an emergency award, the JKX Oil & Gas plc et al v. Ukraine case has been given final relief. Recognition and enforcement of the interim measures was refused on the basis of violation of the public policy of Ukraine and the absence of a proper notification of Ukraine of the arbitration proceedings.39 This case is of particular interest not only because of the consideration of the public policy exception regarding the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, but also the enforceability of awards granting interim emergency relief under the New York Convention – that issue, unfortunately, not being dealt with in much detail by the Supreme Court.

Another success for Ukraine was seen in the Krederi Ltd v. Ukraine ICSID arbitration, where on 2 July 2018 the tribunal rendered an award rejecting the claims against Ukraine in full.40

In contrast, Ukraine lost in the city–state case arising out an alleged failure by Ukraine's banking authority to exercise regulatory oversight over claimants' deposits in KreditPromBank after it was sold to a Ukrainian national, including the alleged transfer of the bank's assets and accounts to offshore companies in violation of Ukrainian banking regulation, and alleged government interference in domestic judicial proceedings.41


The Ukrainian legislation on international arbitration, being a verbatim adoption of the Model Law, and its application, which largely resembles the best practices in the field as widely accepted in international arbitration worldwide, allow the safe conclusion that the reasonable expectations of users of international arbitration in or with a link to Ukraine most likely will be met. Improving international arbitration in Ukraine as an effective mechanism of dispute resolution and aligning the way arbitration is done in Ukraine with the best international practices is a constant work in progress by various stakeholders. In the past couple of years, Ukraine has been among the active players on the arbitration market, and there is no sign of this trend declining, considering the number of investment arbitration cases still pending, and the potential for the dispute resolution market to respond accordingly to the current political and business environment in Ukraine.


1 Oleg Alyoshin is a partner and Vasylyna Odnorih is an associate at Vasil Kisil & Partners.

2 Constitution of Ukraine, Law of Ukraine No. 245к/96-ВР dated 28 June 1996, Article 9.

3 Law of Ukraine 'On International Commercial Arbitration' No. 4002-XII dated 24 February 1994.

4 Code of Civil Procedure of Ukraine, Law of Ukraine No. 1618-IV dated 18 March 2004.

5 Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine, Law of Ukraine No. 1798-XII dated 6 November 1991.

6 Code of Civil Procedure of Ukraine, Law of Ukraine No. 1618-IV dated 18 March 2004, Section VIII.

7 Code of Civil Procedure of Ukraine, Law of Ukraine No. 1618-IV dated 18 March 2004, Section IX.

8 Code of Civil Procedure of Ukraine, Law of Ukraine No. 1618-IV dated 18 March 2004, Articles 84(11), 85(9), 94, 116(7), 152(6).

9 Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, Law of Ukraine No. 1798-XII dated 6 November 1991, Article 22(1).

10 Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine, Law of Ukraine No. 1798-XII dated 6 November 1991, Article 22(3).

11 Law of Ukraine 'On International Commercial Arbitration' No. 4002-XII dated 24 February 1994, Article 1(1).

12 Law of Ukraine 'On International Commercial Arbitration' No. 4002-XII dated 24 February 1994, Article 1(2).

13 Code of Civil Procedure of Ukraine, Law of Ukraine No. 1618-IV dated 18 March 2004, Articles 458, 459, 478, and 486.

14 The Law of Ukraine on the Judicial System and Status of Judges No. 2509-VII dated 5 August 2018, Articles 17, 37.

15 Code of Civil Procedure of Ukraine, Law of Ukraine No. 1618-IV dated 18 March 2004, Article 23(3).

16 Code of Civil Procedure of Ukraine, Law of Ukraine No. 1618-IV dated 18 March 2004, Article 116(8).

17 Law of Ukraine 'On the Judicial System and the Status of Judges' No. 1402-VIII dated 2 June 2016, Article 3(2).

18 ICAC at the UCCI official web-page, History, available at https://icac.org.ua/en/arbitrazh/.

19 ICAC at the UCCI official web-page, Statistics and Practice, available at https://icac.org.ua/en/statystyka-ta-praktyka/.

20 ICAC at the UCCI official web-page, Statistics and Practice, available at https://icac.org.ua/en/statystyka-ta-praktyka/statystyka/.

21 ICAC at the UCCI official web-page, Statistics and Practice available at https://icac.org.ua/en/statystyka-ta-praktyka/statystyka/.

22 Resolution of the Supreme Court in case No. 910/13366/18 dated 4 March 2019.

23 Code of Civil Procedure of Ukraine, Law of Ukraine No. 1618-IV dated 18 March 2004, Article 226.

24 Code of Civil Procedure of Ukraine, Law of Ukraine No. 1618-IV dated 18 March 2004, Article 457(8).

25 Ruling of the Supreme Court of Ukraine dated 17 April 2018 in case No. 904/4384/17, available in the Unified State Register of Court Decisions at http://www.reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/73702604.

26 Ruling of the Kiev Court of Appeal dated 17 September 2018 in case No. 125/2018, available in the Unified State Register of Court Decisions at http://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/76647326.

27 Ruling of the Supreme Court of Ukraine dated 24 September 2018 in case No. 785/1018/18, available in the Unified State Register of Court Decisions at http://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/76812069.

28 Ruling of the Kiev Court of Appeal dated 21 May 2018 in case No. 796/111/2018, available in the Unified State Register of Court Decisions at http://www.reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/74121260.

29 Ruling of the Supreme Court of Ukraine dated 15 May 2018 in case No. 759/16206/14-ц, available in the Unified State Register of Court Decisions at http://www.reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/74630452.

30 Ruling of the Supreme Court of Ukraine dated 25 July 2018 in case No. 761/41709/17, available in the Unified State Register of Court Decisions at http://www.reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/75690808.

31 NJSC Naftogaz of Ukraine et al v. Russia, UNCITRAL, PCA case No. 2017-16; Aeroport Belbek LLC and Mr Igor Valerievich Kolomoisky v. Russia, UNCITRAL, PCA case No. 2015-07; Stabil et al v. Russia, UNCITRAL, PCA case No. 2015-35; Privatbank and Finilon v. Russia, PCA case No. 2015-21; PJSC Ukrnafta v. Russia, PCA case No. 2015-34; Lugzor and others v. Russia, PCA case No. 2015-29; DTEK Energy Holding v. Russia.

32 PCA case No. 2015-36, press release dated 9 May 2018, available at https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/2325.

34 PrivatBank web-page, press release available at https://en.privatbank.ua/news/2019/2/15/842.

35 Ruling of the Supreme Court dated 25 January 2019 in case No. 796/165/18, available in the Unified State Register of Court Decisions at http://www.reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/79573187.

36 Naftogaz web-page, Media tab, 'Historical Victory for Ukraine: Stockholm Arbitration', available at http://www.naftogaz.com/www/3/nakweben.nsf/0/E62D5C9B21795281C225834B00537D4E?OpenDocument&Expand=2&.

37 Naftogaz web-page, Media tab, 'First anniversary of Stockholm victory: Naftogaz has received USD 2.1 billion from Gazprom and seeks to further enforce award', available at http://www.naftogaz.com/www/3/nakweben.nsf/0/2D0990FE0A362290C22583AF00690767?OpenDocument&year=2019&month=03&nt=News.

38 Tom Jones, 'Philip Morris and Ukraine settle tax dispute', Global Arbitration Review publication dated 6 December 2018, available at https://globalarbitrationreview.com/article/1177672/philip-morris-and-ukraine-settle-tax-dispute.

39 Ruling of the Supreme Court dated 19 September 2018 in case No. 757/5777/15-ц, available in the Unified State Register of Court Decisions at http://www.reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/76596637.

40 Krederi Ltd v. Ukraine, ICSID case No. ARB/14/17, case details available at https://icsid.worldbank.org/.en/Pages/cases/casedetail.aspx?CaseNo=ARB/14/17; press release of the Ukrainian Ministry of Justice dated 3 July 2018, available at https://minjust.gov.ua/news/ministry/arbitrajniy-tribunal-vidhiliv-pozovni-vimogi-kompanii-krederi-ltd-proti-ukraini.

41 City-State NV, Praktyka Asset Management Company LLC, Crystal-Invest LLC and Prodiz LLC v. Ukraine, ICSID case No. ARB/14/9, UNCTAD Investment Policy Hub, case details available at https://investmentpolicyhubold.unctad.org/ISDS/Details/592.