ARDIX v Ministry of Defence of Ukraine: USD 8.5 Million ICAC Enforcement Application Left Without Consideration
⚖️ ARDIX SP. Z O.O. v MINISTRY OF DEFENCE OF UKRAINE
📂 Case Details
Case Title: ARDIX Sp. z o.o. v Ministry of Defence of Ukraine
Case No.: 824/1/26
Proceedings No.: 22-вк/824/17/2026
Court: Kyiv Court of Appeal
Date: 23 June 2026
Case Category: International Commercial Arbitration
Subject Matter: Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards
Sub-Subject: Authentication of Arbitration Agreement / Failure to Remedy Procedural Defects
Arbitral Institution: International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ICAC)
ICAC Case No.: 178/2024
ICAC Award Date: 14 February 2025
Claim Amount: USD 8,546,340.00
The case concerned an application by Polish company ARDIX Sp. z o.o. to recognise and enforce an ICAC award against the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine concerning USD 8.546 million allegedly due under a settlement agreement relating to two supply contracts concluded in April 2022.
Background of the Dispute
ARDIX sought recognition of the ICAC award of 14 February 2025, permission for its compulsory enforcement in Ukraine and issuance of a writ of execution.
The enforcement proceedings encountered documentary difficulties concerning the arbitration agreement. The Court found that ARDIX had initially submitted a photocopy of a copy of the arbitration agreement, rather than an original or a notarised copy meeting the requirements of Ukrainian procedural law. The Court also considered that the accompanying apostille did not sufficiently identify the document to which it related.
On 19 May 2026, the Kyiv Court of Appeal therefore left the application without movement and gave ARDIX five days to remedy the deficiency by providing an original or properly notarised copy of the arbitration agreement.
ARDIX subsequently informed the Court that it was providing a notarised copy of the 10 August 2023 settlement agreement certified by a notary under Israeli law. Additional documents—including an explanatory letter from the Israeli notary and another copy of the settlement agreement with apostille and Ukrainian translation—were later submitted.
The Court’s Decision
The Kyiv Court of Appeal left ARDIX’s enforcement application without consideration.
A central issue was whether the documents submitted by ARDIX established that the relevant settlement agreement containing the arbitration clause had been properly certified on the basis of the original document.
The Court concluded that they did not.
According to the Court, the notarial materials merely indicated that “Document A” was a copy of the agreement. They did not clearly establish that the copy had been certified against the original arbitration agreement. ARDIX also failed to provide the original agreement within the period established by the Court.
There was an additional procedural problem. ARDIX attempted to submit further evidence on 23 June 2026, but the five-day deadline established by the Court had already expired. The applicant had not requested an extension or restoration of that deadline. The Court consequently declined to consider the late evidence.
A Second Attempt at Enforcement
An important feature of the decision is that this was not ARDIX’s first attempt to enforce the award.
The Court noted that substantially the same documents had already been considered in earlier proceedings, Case No. 824/121/25. In its decision of 19 December 2025, another panel of the Kyiv Court of Appeal had returned the application, including because ARDIX had failed to provide the original arbitration agreement containing the arbitration clause or a properly notarised copy.
The Court therefore considered that ARDIX had effectively returned with an analogous documentary package that still failed to satisfy Article 476 CPC.
Why This Decision Matters
The case highlights a procedural issue that can have major consequences in Ukrainian arbitration enforcement proceedings:
a copy of an arbitration agreement is not necessarily a properly notarised copy merely because it carries foreign notarial certification and an apostille.
For enforcement purposes, the documentation must enable the Ukrainian court to establish that the submitted copy was properly authenticated in relation to the original arbitration agreement.
The case also demonstrates the importance of procedural deadlines. Once a court gives an applicant a specific period to remedy deficiencies, obtaining the correct documents later may not be sufficient. If additional time is required—for example, because originals or notarised documents must be obtained abroad—the applicant should address the deadline procedurally rather than simply filing the documents after it has expired.
Lions Lawyers’ Analysis
The practical significance of the decision extends beyond formal document preparation.
The underlying ICAC proceedings concerned more than USD 8.5 million, yet the Ukrainian enforcement proceedings did not reach substantive consideration of whether the award should ultimately be enforced. Instead, the application failed at the documentary and procedural stage.
The decision illustrates three points for international award creditors.
First, the arbitration agreement itself should be treated as a core enforcement document. Article 476 CPC requires either the original arbitration agreement or a properly notarised copy.
Second, where foreign notarisation is used, counsel should verify that the certification clearly establishes the relationship between the notarised copy and the original document, and that apostilles, translations and document references allow the Ukrainian court to identify precisely what has been authenticated.
Third, deficiencies should be resolved within the deadline imposed by the court. Where that is impossible because documents are located abroad, the procedural deadline itself should be addressed. In this case, the Court expressly noted that ARDIX had not requested an extension or restoration of the five-day period.
Ultimately, the Kyiv Court of Appeal applied the procedural rules by analogy and left the enforcement application without consideration because the identified deficiencies had not been remedied within the prescribed period.
The decision therefore provides a straightforward lesson for cross-border enforcement practice: even a multimillion-dollar arbitral award can be stalled by defects in the authentication of the arbitration agreement.
Lions Lawyers advises Ukrainian and international clients on international arbitration, recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards, challenges to arbitral awards, and cross-border disputes involving Ukraine.