Your client holds an award against a Ukrainian company that has stopped answering: CIETAC, HKIAC, SIAC or ad hoc. The award travels under the New York Convention, so the legal question looks settled. Three things are not: what the debtor will argue, what happens if it files to set the award aside at the seat, and whether the money can leave Ukraine once it is recovered.
Contents
The short version. The application goes to the Kyiv Court of Appeal wherever the debtor sits, within three years of the award, and a single judge decides within two months of receipt. The grounds for refusal are Article V of the New York Convention and nothing else. Two things defeat applications in practice: a translation that is not notarised in the Ukrainian sense, and foreign documents that were never legalised. One thing delays them: a set-aside filed at the seat, which the Ukrainian court may use to stay the proceedings. And one thing surprises creditors after they win: wartime currency rules decide what the recovery is actually worth.
The court, the clock, and the one motion nobody files
All applications go to the appellate court whose jurisdiction covers the city of Kyiv, regardless of where the debtor is registered in Ukraine (Article 475(3) of the Civil Procedure Code). The deadline is three years from the date of the award; a late application is returned, though the court may restore the deadline for valid reasons.
A single judge hears the application within two months of receipt, in a hearing with notice; the absence of a duly notified party does not prevent it (Article 477(1)). Within five days of receiving the application the court notifies the debtor, who then has one month to object (Article 477(4)).
The provision creditors overlook is Article 477(3): the applicant may ask the court for interim measures at any stage of the proceedings on the application. File that motion with the application itself. Those five days before the debtor is notified are the only period in the whole process when you are ahead of it.
What the Ukrainian debtor will argue, in order of what works
Article 478 of the Code reproduces Article V of the New York Convention word for word, so the menu is fixed. What is not obvious is which items on it actually succeed.
The best available evidence comes from the neighbouring jurisdiction. An empirical study of 203 Chinese court rulings on the recognition of foreign awards between 2012 and 2022 found that nine of fourteen full refusals rested on Article V(1)(a) of the New York Convention, no valid arbitration agreement, and only one on public policy in eleven years. The Convention is the same instrument in Kyiv, so the pattern is a fair guide to what a Ukrainian debtor will try.
Expect the debtor to attack in this order:
- The arbitration agreement. That the person who signed had no authority; that the company never signed the version containing the clause; that a later agreement replaced the dispute-resolution provision; that the respondent is not the entity that signed. Ukrainian companies may be reorganised, and the identity chain is where files are thin.
- Notice. That notices went to the address in a five-year-old contract, or arrived in a language the company could not act on, or left no real opportunity to present its case.
- Scope. That the clause covered one contract while the award decided a course of dealing. This is the ground that produces partial refusals, which is worse than it sounds: the part you lose is the part you cannot re-litigate.
- Composition and procedure. Whether they matched the rules and the parties’ agreement.
- Public policy. It will be pleaded. It almost never succeeds.
Prepare the answers before filing, not after the objection lands: the authority documents for the signatory, the signed version with the clause, the corporate chain from signatory to respondent, and the complete service file from the arbitration.
The formality that ends applications
Article 476(4) requires the original of the duly authenticated award or a notarised copy, the original of the arbitration agreement or a notarised copy, and a certified translation.
“Certified” is read literally. The Supreme Court has refused to treat a translation as official where the translator’s signature carried no notarial certification, and has restated that documents drawn up abroad are admissible only after legalisation unless a treaty provides otherwise (ruling of 30 January 2020 in case No. 910/14949/18, paragraphs 9.17 and 9.19). In practice that means an apostille for states party to the 1961 Hague Convention and consular legalisation for the rest.
For counsel in Beijing, Hong Kong or Singapore this means one practical thing: budget a Ukrainian notary and a Ukrainian translator into the filing timetable. A technically sound application can be left without motion for this alone.
Holding a Chinese award against a Ukrainian debtor? Send the award and the arbitration agreement — we will check the translation and legalisation trap before you file.
If the debtor files to set the award aside
This is the counter-move to price in from day one, and the answer depends on the seat.
For an award made in Mainland China, the application to set aside goes to the Intermediate People’s Court within three months of receipt of the award (Article 72 of the PRC Arbitration Law), and for foreign-related arbitration Article 81 of the new law provides that the seat determines both the applicable procedural law and the supervising court. If the case was administered by the CIETAC Hong Kong Arbitration Center, Article 77 of the CIETAC Rules makes Hong Kong the seat and the award a Hong Kong award, so the challenge belongs to the Hong Kong courts, on Hong Kong timelines.
In Ukraine a pending challenge stops nothing by itself. Under Article 477(7) of the Civil Procedure Code the court may stay the recognition proceedings where an application to set the award aside is pending before a competent court. Note the verb: it is a discretion, not an automatic suspension.
Article VI of the New York Convention has two halves, and creditors routinely use only the first. The court that adjourns may also, on the application of the party claiming enforcement, order the other side to give suitable security. In Ukrainian practice that second half is rarely asked for, which means it is rarely granted. Ask for it, and ask in the same filing as the interim-measures motion under Article 477(3).
After you win: the currency question
A recognised award becomes a Ukrainian enforcement document, enforced by the state enforcement service or a private enforcer under Law No. 1404-VIII, with accounts attached as early as the next working day. One limit matters when choosing the enforcer: in the first year of practice a private enforcer may not handle decisions for UAH 20 million or more, or the foreign-currency equivalent (Article 5(2) of Law No. 1404-VIII).
Then comes the part most general guides leave out. Wartime currency control (paragraph 14 of NBU Board Resolution No. 18 of 24 February 2022) prohibits cross-border transfers except for listed operations, so money recovered through an enforcement officer is, in practice, expected to stay in Ukraine unless the claim fits an exception. We cover the mechanics in our guide to debt collection in Ukraine.
Plan around it rather than discover it: open a Ukrainian account before enforcement starts and decide what the funds will be used for here. It also changes the settlement calculus, and your opponent knows it: a structured payment schedule may be worth more to your client than a judgment producing money it cannot move.
Frequently asked questions
Which court hears the application?
The appellate court whose jurisdiction covers the city of Kyiv, regardless of the debtor’s location (Article 475(3) of the Civil Procedure Code).
How long do we have, and how long will it take?
Three years from the date of the award to apply; the court decides within two months of receipt, after giving the debtor one month to object.
Does the Ukrainian court review the merits?
No. Article 478 reproduces Article V of the Convention exhaustively.
What will the debtor argue?
Most often the arbitration agreement (authority of the signatory, the version signed, the identity of the respondent), followed by notice and scope. Public policy is pleaded and rarely succeeds.
What form must the translation take?
A Ukrainian translation whose translator’s signature is certified by a notary; foreign documents must be legalised or apostilled.
Does a set-aside application at the seat stop enforcement here?
Not automatically. The court may stay the proceedings (Article 477(7)), and Article VI of the Convention lets you ask for security in exchange.
Can assets be frozen before the court decides?
Yes, on the applicant’s motion at any stage of the proceedings on the application (Article 477(3)). File it together with the application.
Can the recovered money be transferred abroad?
Often not directly. Wartime rules restrict cross-border transfers, and funds recovered through an enforcement officer generally remain in Ukraine.
If your client holds an award against a Ukrainian company, send us the award, the arbitration agreement, the service file from the arbitration and what you know about the debtor’s assets. We will tell you which objections to expect, what to prepare before filing, what can be frozen in the first five days, and what realistically happens to the money. A partner replies within one business day.
Practice: Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in Ukraine · Commercial Litigation in Ukraine
Written by Anna Tsirat, Doctor of Laws, partner at JVS Law. She has given expert evidence on Ukrainian law in PCA proceedings (The Hague) and writes the Ukrainian national monograph for the International Encyclopaedia for Civil Procedure (Wolters Kluwer).
Published 14 October 2026. Ukrainian provisions are cited to the Civil Procedure Code and Law No. 1404-VIII as in force; PRC provisions to the Arbitration Law in force since 1 March 2026. Wartime currency rules change frequently — verify the current position with the bank before relying on an exception.