Two things surprise foreign counsel about taking evidence in Ukraine, and they pull in opposite directions.
The first is how much is simply unavailable: document discovery as an American litigator understands it does not exist here, and a commissioner sent to depose a witness in Kyiv will be turned away. The second is how much is available to those who ask properly — including two things most requesting courts never think to request.
Contents
Pre-trial discovery: excluded, and not partially
Article 23 of the 1970 Hague Evidence Convention lets a contracting state declare that it will not execute Letters of Request issued for the purpose of obtaining pre-trial discovery of documents. Many states narrow the exclusion, carving out requests that identify specific documents. Ukraine narrowed nothing.
The declaration on the treaty record is flat: a Letter of Request for pre-trial discovery of documents will not be executed.
For US proceedings this is the decisive fact of the whole exercise. A request framed in the language of Rule 34 — categories of documents, custodians, date ranges, “all communications relating to” — will not be executed in Ukraine, and the effort spent drafting it is wasted. What can be obtained is evidence in the civil-law sense: a witness examined by a Ukrainian judge, a specific identified document produced, an expert examination performed.
The practical consequence is that the request has to be rebuilt, not translated. Counsel who send their domestic discovery request to a translator and then to The Hague have skipped the only step that mattered.
Depositions by commissioner: not available
Chapter II of the Convention allows evidence to be taken by diplomatic officers, consular agents and commissioners. States choose which of these to permit. Ukraine’s position:
| Method | Ukraine |
|---|---|
| Art. 15 — consular agent taking evidence from nationals of their own state | Permitted, no prior permission required |
| Art. 16 — consular agent taking evidence from other persons | Not applicable |
| Art. 17 — commissioner appointed by the foreign court | Not applicable |
| Art. 18 — compulsion in aid of Chapter II | Not applicable |
| Art. 23 — pre-trial discovery of documents | Excluded entirely |
Read Article 15 carefully before treating it as an opening. It permits a consular agent of the requesting state to take evidence from nationals of that state who happen to be in Ukraine — no prior permission needed, no compulsion available. A US consular officer may take evidence from a US citizen in Kyiv. That same officer may not examine a Ukrainian national, and no commissioner may examine anyone.
There is a reason this is symmetrical rather than obstructive: Ukrainian law contains no mechanism for its own courts to use these methods abroad either. The reciprocity here is real, not rhetorical.
Why civil-law systems resist Chapter II is worth restating, because it explains what will and will not move. In these systems a court executing a request acts as a public authority, and its directions carry compulsion. Allowing foreign appointees to gather evidence on the territory without permission, control or supervision does not merely lack a legal basis — it does not fit the architecture of the procedure at all. Requests that implicitly assume otherwise fail for structural reasons, and no amount of redrafting the covering letter changes that.
The route that works
A Letter of Request to the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, Department of International Legal Assistance, 13 Horodetskoho Street, Kyiv 01001.
Practical parameters from the treaty record:
- Letters of Request in Ukrainian, or translated into Ukrainian
- No reimbursement of costs is sought — Ukraine has not claimed costs under Articles 14(2) and 26 since 2008
- Average execution time: two to three months
A request sent directly to the Ukrainian court that would execute it is returned without consideration and forwarded to the Ministry. You lose weeks and gain nothing.
The Ministry checks that a treaty is in force between the two states, that the request is drawn up as that treaty requires, and that it contains enough information to be executed at all. If the place of execution cannot be established, the request comes back — so a stale address, a company that has moved, or a witness whose registered residence no longer matches reality will each cost a full cycle.
What the Ukrainian court does with it
Execution sits in Article 500 of the Civil Procedure Code for the general courts and Article 369 of the Commercial Procedure Code for the commercial courts. Their opening paragraphs name exactly what a foreign court may ask for: service of summonses and other documents, examination of parties or witnesses, appointment of an expert examination, inspection at the site, and other procedural steps.
The default is that the Ukrainian court applies Ukrainian procedural law and nothing else. A witness is examined by the judge. The record is the hearing minutes, signed by the judge and sealed with the court’s official seal.
That default is where most requesting courts stop — and it is why the evidence sometimes comes back in a form that is admissible in Ukraine and awkward everywhere else.
The two things you have to ask for
Ask for your own procedure to be applied. Part 3 of both articles says it plainly: on the request of the foreign court, procedural steps may be carried out applying the law of another state, provided that application does not contradict the laws of Ukraine. Nobody applies it on their own initiative. If the transcript needs to read a particular way, if questions must be put in a particular sequence, if verbatim recording matters — that has to be in the Letter of Request.
Ask to be present. Part 4 covers this: where the foreign court asks for the personal presence of its authorised representatives or of participants in the proceedings, the Ukrainian court decides whether to allow that participation. Note the wording — it is the foreign court that asks, not counsel, and the Ukrainian court that decides.
In practice this is the difference between a usable examination and a disappointing one. Counsel who appear can have follow-up questions put; counsel who did not ask read a transcript months later and discover the point they needed was never reached.
When execution is refused
The grounds are narrow and identical in both codes. A request is not accepted for execution if it may prejudice Ukraine’s sovereignty or threaten its national security, if it falls outside the jurisdiction of the court concerned, or if it contradicts Ukrainian law or a treaty binding on Ukraine.
Note the third limb. “Contradicts Ukrainian law” is the door through which an Article 23 discovery request departs — not because anyone is being obstructive, but because there is no procedure in Ukrainian law that corresponds to what is being asked for.
If the request cannot be executed, it is returned to the foreign court with the reasons stated and the supporting documents attached. That is worth knowing: you receive an explanation you can act on, not silence.
Questions we are asked
Can we depose a Ukrainian witness by video link from London or New York?
Not as a matter of unilateral right. Evidence from a person in Ukraine is taken by the Ukrainian court executing a Letter of Request. Remote participation may be possible as part of that execution — it falls under the same provision that governs the presence of foreign representatives — but it is the court’s decision and it has to be requested.
Our client is a US citizen living in Kyiv. Do we still need a Letter of Request?
Possibly not. Article 15 permits a consular agent of your state to take evidence from your own nationals without prior permission. No compulsion is available, so this works only with a cooperative witness.
Will Ukraine execute a request for documents at all?
Yes, where specific identified documents are sought as evidence. What is excluded is pre-trial discovery — searching categories of material to find out what exists.
How much does it cost?
Ukraine has not sought reimbursement of execution costs since 2008. Budget for translation and for your own counsel’s attendance, not for the state’s time.
Can we insist that the examination follow our procedural rules?
You can request it, and it will be considered. It will be refused if it contradicts the laws of Ukraine. Silence in the request means Ukrainian procedure applies by default.
What comes back to us?
The executed request together with the court’s record of the procedural steps — minutes signed by the judge and sealed by the court, plus any documents drawn up or obtained during execution. Not a deposition transcript in the familiar form.
Related: on serving the proceedings themselves, see serving proceedings on a Ukrainian defendant. Expert evidence on Ukrainian law for foreign courts and tribunals is covered on our Expert Witness on Ukrainian Law page; on bringing the resulting judgment here, see the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention.
If you are drafting a Letter of Request for evidence in Ukraine — or have had one returned — send us the draft and the underlying issues. A partner responds within one business day.
Written by Gennadii Tsirat, Doctor of Laws, partner at Jurvneshservice, author of International Civil Procedure. He has acted as a Ukrainian law expert before the High Court of Justice (London) and the courts of Austria.
Published 15 September 2026. Ukraine’s declarations under the 1970 Hague Evidence Convention are stated as recorded in the HCCH status table; procedural rules are cited to the Civil and Commercial Procedure Codes as in force. Treaty positions and ministry practice change — verify the current position before acting in a specific matter.