Legal Framework and Restrictions on Distribution in Ukraine

Distribution in Ukraine is built upon a combination of civil-law provisions, antitrust regulations, and specialized sectoral rules. The civil code defines the fundamental mechanisms (sale, commission, agency), while every agreement must comply with competition law requirements and, where applicable, industry-specific laws governing particular categories of goods.

Distribution in Ukraine is governed by general civil-law rules that provide flexible tools for structuring relationships between a manufacturer (supplier) and a distributor. The most common—and foundational—method for formalizing these relationships is a contract of sale. Under Article 633 of the Civil Code of Ukraine (CCU), the seller transfers the goods into the buyer’s ownership, and the buyer undertakes to pay the agreed price. Articles 634–642 of the CCU detail the parties’ respective obligations: the delivery procedure, payment deadlines, liability for defects, and measures to address identified deficiencies. For the distributor, they become the direct owner of the goods and assume the full risk of storage and subsequent resale.

In wholesale-retail distribution, a contract of sale acquires several distinctive features. First, it often specifies minimum purchase quantities that the distributor must buy over a period (e.g., a month or a quarter). This helps the manufacturer plan production capacity and output volumes, but requires clearly defined penalties should the distributor fail to meet these obligations. Second, pricing in a standard sale contract is typically a fixed price per unit; however, distributors often receive volume-based discounts or rebates. If price adjustments become necessary—for example, due to inflation or changes in raw material costs—it is advisable to include an escalation mechanism or indexation clause in the contract tying price changes to a reference index, such as a currency exchange rate or a producer price index. Third, the agreement may grant territorial exclusivity, whereby the distributor obtains the exclusive right to sell the product within a specified territory. Such a clause usually appears as a separate section that lists the designated regions and restricts the manufacturer from supplying the same goods to other partners in those regions. At the same time, one must ensure that granting exclusivity does not contravene competition law, particularly by leading to an excessively high market share.

Moreover, a multi-faceted distribution agreement often includes sale provisions and clauses relating to supply, storage, and the use of intellectual property assets. For example, the manufacturer may grant the distributor a license to use trademarks, logos, know-how, or proprietary technologies in marketing materials and packaging. In that case, the agreement will include a license sub-agreement specifying the terms for granting IP rights (duration, territorial scope, permitted modes of use) and the requirements for the storage and protection of confidential technical data, creative works, or patented inventions. Frequently, the contract also includes instructions on proper storage of both the physical goods (storage conditions, temperature controls, restricted access), along with a quality-control and audit regimen imposed by the manufacturer.

Not every distributor is willing or able to purchase the goods outright. In such instances, Ukrainian law provides two alternative frameworks: commission agreements and agency agreements. Under a commission agreement (Articles 1000–1009 CCU), the principal (manufacturer) delivers goods to the commission agent (distributor-commissionaire) for sale in the agent’s name but at the principal’s expense. The commission agent acts on their behalf and receives a commission, either a fixed fee or a percentage of the sale price. This model is suitable when the manufacturer seeks to minimize the risk associated with unsold inventory. If the commission agent fails to sell the goods, they return them to the principal. However, the commission agent does not acquire ownership of the goods and is compensated only upon a successful sale, which may reduce their incentive to actively promote the products.

The alternative is an agency agreement (Articles 1010–1016 CCU), under which the agent (distributor-agent) negotiates and concludes contracts on behalf of the principal (manufacturer). In this arrangement, the manufacturer formally signs all sales contracts, while the agent facilitates their execution and earns a commission. This approach lets the manufacturer retain strict control over pricing and sales terms. The agent never acquires title to the goods and does not bear the risk of storage or resale; accordingly, the agent’s commission is typically lower than that of a commissionaire, since the principal absorbs the primary commercial risk.

Therefore, the choice among a contract of sale, a commission agreement, and an agency agreement depends on whether the distributor intends to become the owner of the goods or merely to sell them on behalf of the manufacturer, as well as on which party is prepared to assume the risk of unsold inventory and how the manufacturer intends to control pricing and brand image. If the distributor is ready to invest in purchasing, warehousing, and marketing the goods, a contract of sale is the most advantageous. Conversely, a commission or agency agreement is appropriate if the manufacturer aims to minimize risk while simultaneously expanding their distribution footprint via a network of intermediaries.

Finally, calling the arrangement a “distribution agreement” is entirely appropriate. Such a title immediately clarifies the business model—the supplier, the distributor, and the flow of the product. At the same time, it is essential to remember that a specific type of civil-law contract is under that title. Accordingly, the text of any “distribution agreement” must explicitly state whether it is a contract of sale, a commission agreement, or an agency agreement, and must plainly set out the respective rights and obligations of the parties. The agreement violates civil-law principles if the title denotes roles but the substance does not conform to any recognized contract form. Thus, correctly combining the terminology (“distribution agreement”) with precise legal structuring (sale, commission, or agency) ensures transparency of relations and helps avoid misunderstandings during performance.

In Ukraine’s competitive environment, distribution agreements are subject to stringent regulation under the Law on Protection of Economic Competition. Specifically, determining a company’s market share becomes a critical factor in applying specific requirements. If a participant’s share in the relevant market exceeds 35 percent (for large enterprises) or 50 percent (for small and medium-sized enterprises), the distribution agreement in question must be notified in advance to the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMCU). In such a case, the parties must submit a notification regarding a concentration or coordinated actions, allowing the AMCU to assess whether the arrangement may pose a risk of market dominance or impose constraints on competition. Failure to provide such notification can result in the regulator blocking the agreement and imposing significant fines.

The law also explicitly identifies so-called “hardcore” restrictions, which are deemed automatically prohibited in all distribution agreements, regardless of market share levels. The first of these is fixing minimum or maximum resale prices. In other words, if the manufacturer compels the distributor to sell the goods at a specified price or within a price range, the agreement loses any benefit of a block exemption and becomes subject to AMCU investigation. A similar prohibition applies to territorial restrictions without justification: forbidding a distributor from selling goods outside a specified geographic area (for instance, restricting sales to specific cities or regions), absent an objective technical or quality-related necessity raises suspicions of market partitioning. Such “artificial” constraints immediately fall outside the scope of acceptable practice because they create entry barriers and bolster the dominance of particular players. Additionally, any clause that imposes an exclusive obligation not to work with competitors is also black-listed, as it restricts the distributor’s freedom to choose contracting parties and may lead to abuse of market power.

When AMCU identifies violations of these prohibitions, it can deploy several enforcement tools. First, the infringing party may face monetary penalties ranging from tens to hundreds of thousands of hryvnias, depending on the severity of the violation. Second, the unlawful provisions within the agreement can be declared null and void, while the remainder of the contract remains in force. This approach is frequently seen in AMCU decisions, where the Committee opens cases based on market participants’ complaints or its initiative. For example, if a distribution agreement contains rigid price-fixing or unjustified territorial restrictions, AMCU may order the parties to remove those provisions or impose administrative sanctions and refer the issue to a commercial court to invalidate the prohibited clauses. By these means, Ukrainian competition law operates preventively: it not only punishes past violations but also instills in businesses the understanding that any hardcore restrictions in distribution agreements are impermissible and will promptly draw regulatory scrutiny.

In the sphere of distribution for certain goods—namely, tobacco products, electronic cigarettes, pharmaceutical products, and alcoholic beverages—Ukrainian law has adopted a new, more integrated approach. The current cornerstone is the Law of Ukraine “On State Regulation of Production and Circulation of Ethyl Alcohol, Distillates, Bioethanol, Alcoholic Beverages, Tobacco Products, Tobacco Raw Materials, Liquids Used in Electronic Cigarettes, and Petroleum Products.” This law consolidates previously fragmented regulations controlling each category of goods separately and establishes a unified licensing, record-keeping, and oversight system. It aligns licensing, tracking, and control procedures to avoid duplicating requirements and to ensure a transparent chain of accountability from the manufacturer to the end consumer.

In sum, the industry-specific regulations for these categories of goods create a tightly regulated environment that requires businesses to navigate a unified licensing, excise, and monitoring framework. This ensures that consumer health is protected from the moment of manufacture to the point of sale, and market integrity is maintained.

We have reviewed the core civil-law mechanisms for entering into distribution agreements, the restrictions imposed by competition law, and the specific regulatory requirements for tobacco products, electronic cigarettes, and alcoholic beverages. These elements provide the foundation for establishing reliable and legally compliant relationships between manufacturers and distributors.

✉ Email: kyiv@jvs.law.
📞 Phone: +38(093)002-82-50