Features of the Enforcement of Foreign Court Decisions in Ukraine

The possibility of recognizing and enforcing foreign court decisions in Ukraine is enshrined in Article 81 of the Law of Ukraine “On Private International Law” and the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters. The procedure for recognizing and enforcing such judgments is outlined in Section IX of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine (hereinafter—the CPC of Ukraine), which establishes the principles, conditions, and requirements for the recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments in Ukraine in accordance with international standards. 

Below, we outline the main steps for successfully navigating the procedure for the recognition and enforcement of a foreign court judgment in Ukraine, as well as common mistakes applicants often make.

Key Steps and Common Mistakes in the Procedure for Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Court Decisions in Ukraine

It is worth noting that foreign court decisions are subject to recognition and enforcement in Ukraine if there is an international treaty, the binding nature of which has been approved by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, or on the basis of the principle of reciprocity.

Therefore, the first practical step before filing a petition with the court for the recognition and enforcement of a foreign court judgment is to verify the existence of an international treaty between Ukraine and the state whose court issued the relevant judgment, governing the recognition and enforcement of court judgments. 

However, the absence of an international treaty does not in itself preclude the recognition and enforcement of a court decision if the application of this principle is provided for by national law. That is, in the absence of an international treaty, the process of recognizing and enforcing a foreign court’s decision is carried out in accordance with the principle of reciprocity.  Thus, Article 462 of the Code of Civil Procedure of Ukraine establishes that if the recognition and enforcement of a foreign court’s decision depends on the principle of reciprocity, it is presumed to exist unless proven otherwise.

The second important step is determining the competent court to which the relevant motion is filed, as well as complying with the established procedure and deadlines for its submission.

The procedure for such an application is not very complicated: the relevant petition is filed with the court along with the necessary attachments, the list of which is specified in Articles 466–472 of the Code of Civil Procedure of Ukraine.

If an international treaty, the binding nature of which has been approved by the Parliament of Ukraine, establishes a specific list of documents to be submitted, the applicant must follow that list. In the absence of such a treaty or if it does not specify the list of attachments, the following must be attached to the petition:

1. a duly certified copy of the foreign court’s decision;
2. a document confirming that the decision has become final (if this is not stated in the decision itself);
3. a document confirming proper notification of the party that did not participate in the case;
4. a document specifying which part of the judgment is enforceable (if it has been enforced previously);
5. a document confirming the representative’s authority (if the motion is filed by a representative);

It is also worth paying attention to practical nuances that often serve as grounds for denying a motion. In particular, a common mistake is failing to properly notify a party to the case of its proceedings, or the lack of sufficient evidence of such notification. If the party against whom a foreign court decision was rendered proves that they were not properly informed about the proceedings abroad or were unable to exercise their right to defense, this may constitute an independent ground for refusing to recognize and enforce the foreign court decision.

An equally common ground for refusal is the applicant’s failure to take into account the existence in Ukraine of a court decision that is already in the enforcement stage and was rendered between the same parties and on the same grounds. In such cases, the courts rely on the principle of the inadmissibility of double jeopardy and the principle of legal certainty.

In this context, it is worth noting several Supreme Court rulings that reflect current approaches in judicial practice regarding these issues.

Review of Relevant Judicial Practice of the Supreme Court 

In a ruling of the Civil Cassation Court within the Supreme Court (hereinafter “CCC SC”) dated July 30, 2025, in Case No. 756/7283/23, the issue of compliance with the time limits for filing a petition with the court for recognition of a foreign court’s decision was examined.

In June 2023, the applicant filed a motion with the Obolon District Court of Kyiv seeking recognition and authorization for the enforcement of the decision of the District Court of Novo Mesto (Republic of Slovenia) dated January 3, 2020, which became final on February 13, 2020, in Case No. P 229/2016-46 regarding the recovery of funds.

By a ruling of the Obolon District Court of Kyiv dated February 21, 2024, the motion was denied, in particular because the debtor does not reside in Ukraine and the judgment is already being enforced in Slovenia, which could lead to double recovery.

By a ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeals dated September 24, 2024, the decision of the court of first instance was overturned; however, the motion was also denied—on other grounds. The Court of Appeals reasoned that the applicant filed the motion on June 12, 2023, i.e., outside the three-year period established by Article 463 of the Code of Civil Procedure of Ukraine.

The Supreme Court upheld the position of the appellate court and noted that the time limit for submitting a foreign judgment for enforcement is three years from the date it becomes final under national law. Since the judgment in Case No. P 229/2016-46 became final on February 13, 2020, and the applicant filed the motion only on June 12, 2023—that is, after the expiration of the three-year period—this constitutes grounds for denying the motion.

Other grounds for granting a motion for permission to enforce a foreign court’s decision were considered by the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court in its ruling of October 22, 2025, in Case No. 308/17585/23.

The facts of the case were that the applicant filed a petition with the court seeking recognition and permission to enforce the judgment of the District Court of Humenné (Slovak Republic) dated October 5, 2020, and the order dated February 5, 2021, in case No. 17Cb/26/2020 regarding the recovery of funds from a Ukrainian citizen for failure to fulfill contractual obligations.

By a ruling of the Uzhhorod City and District Court of Zakarpattia Oblast dated April 2, 2024, the applicant’s motion was granted. The court found no deficiencies in the form or content of the motion.

 By a ruling of the Transcarpathian Court of Appeal dated November 7, 2024, the ruling of the Uzhhorod City and District Court of the Transcarpathian Region dated April 2, 2024, was overturned, and a new court decision was issued, which denied the motion to recognize and grant permission for the enforcement of the court decision of the Slovak Republic. The denial was based on the improper notification of the debtor regarding the proceedings.

At the same time, the Supreme Court disagreed with the conclusion of the appellate court, noting that the latter had failed to take into account that, in the event of improper notification by a foreign court regarding the proceedings, procedural law grants a person who did not participate in the court proceedings the opportunity to file appropriate objections to the motion with the court hearing the motion.

Thus, the debtor was duly notified and informed of the filing and consideration of the relevant motion, and also had a real opportunity to exercise his procedural rights. This was the basis for the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the appellate court’s position was erroneous and, accordingly, for the reversal of its decision in this part.

It is worth separately addressing the categories of cases that most frequently arise in the practice of recognizing and enforcing foreign court decisions in Ukraine, namely regarding the collection of alimony.

In this category of cases, the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, in its resolution of January 28, 2026, in Case No. 456/1567/24, issued a legal opinion stating that a motion for permission to enforce a foreign court’s decision may be denied if a decision of a national court already exists and is being enforced between the same parties.

In March 2024, the applicant filed a petition with the Stryi City and District Court of Lviv Oblast seeking recognition and permission for the enforcement of the decision of the District Court of Prague dated June 15, 2009, regarding the collection of child support.

By a ruling of the Stryi City and District Court of Lviv Oblast dated October 30, 2024, the motion for enforcement of the foreign court’s decision was granted, and permission was granted to collect child support pursuant to the foreign court’s decision.

By a ruling of the Lviv Court of Appeals dated September 23, 2025, the decision of the court of first instance was overturned and a new ruling was issued, on the grounds that there were no legal grounds for granting the motion, given the existence of a judgment by a Ukrainian national court ordering the payment of child support.

The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s position and noted that the existence of a national court decision on the collection of child support, which is already in the enforcement stage, precludes the possibility of granting the motion for permission to enforce a foreign court decision. Otherwise, this would lead to the simultaneous existence of two enforcement documents regarding the recovery of the same amounts from the debtor in favor of the same person.

Thus, it can be concluded that when filing a motion for permission to enforce a foreign court’s decision, it is necessary to carefully consider both substantive and procedural nuances. Before filing the motion, it is advisable to thoroughly analyze the circumstances of the case and the available documents, as well as to ensure that the motion is properly drafted in accordance with the requirements regarding its form, content, attachments, and deadlines.