Ukrainian Court Opens Set-Aside Proceedings in ICAC Award Dispute Involving Turkish Company Limak
⚖️ LIMAK INSAAT SANAYI VE TICARET ANONIM SIRKETI v DNIPRO METRO
📂 Case Details
Case Title: LIMAK INSAAT SANAYI VE TICARET ANONIM SIRKETI v DNIPRO METRO
Case No.: 824/57/26
Court: Kyiv Court of Appeal
Date: 20 July 2026
Case Category: International Commercial Arbitration
Subject Matter: Setting Aside Arbitral Awards
Sub-Subject: Commencement of Set-Aside Proceedings
Arbitral Institution: International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ICAC)
ICAC Case No.: 190/2022
ICAC Award Date: 31 March 2026
Background of the Dispute
The proceedings arise from an international commercial arbitration between Limak Insaat Sanayi ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi, a Turkish company, and Dnipro Metro, a Ukrainian municipal enterprise of the Dnipro City Council.
The underlying arbitration concerned a claim brought by Limak against Dnipro Metro for the recovery of funds.
ICAC rendered its award in Case No. 190/2022 on 31 March 2026.
On 8 July 2026, Limak applied to the Kyiv Court of Appeal seeking to set aside the ICAC award.
The Court’s Decision
The Kyiv Court of Appeal reviewed Limak’s application against the procedural requirements governing challenges to international commercial arbitration awards in Ukraine.
The Court found that the application complied with the form and content requirements of Article 455 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine and had been submitted within the time limits prescribed by Article 454.
Finding no procedural obstacle to consideration of the challenge, the Court opened set-aside proceedings on 20 July 2026.
The Court ordered that copies of the application and accompanying materials be provided to the participants and gave them 20 days from receipt to submit objections, explanations and supporting evidence.
The order is not subject to appeal.
Why This Decision Matters
The case adds to the developing Ukrainian court practice concerning challenges to international commercial arbitration awards rendered by ICAC in Ukraine.
At this procedural stage, the Kyiv Court of Appeal has not decided whether the award should be set aside. Nor does the order disclose the substantive grounds on which Limak challenges the award. The decision establishes only that the application satisfied the initial procedural requirements and may proceed to substantive consideration.
The case nevertheless has a significant cross-border dimension. It involves a Turkish company and a Ukrainian municipal enterprise in a dispute that has moved from international arbitration into the Ukrainian courts.
The proceedings should therefore be followed for the Court’s eventual consideration of the substantive grounds advanced against the ICAC award.
Lions Lawyers’ Analysis
The decision illustrates the distinction between opening set-aside proceedings and actually setting aside an arbitral award.
At this stage, Limak has crossed only the procedural threshold. The Court found that its application was timely and formally compliant. This does not indicate how the Court will ultimately assess the challenge or whether any statutory ground for setting aside the award will be established.
This distinction is particularly important when analysing Ukrainian arbitration case law. Orders opening proceedings should not be interpreted as indicating judicial scepticism toward the arbitral award itself. They are procedural decisions allowing the challenge to proceed.
The case is also relevant to foreign contractors dealing with Ukrainian municipal and public-sector entities. Arbitration may determine the underlying commercial dispute, but an award rendered in Ukraine may subsequently become subject to supervisory proceedings before Ukrainian courts.
The order itself does not identify the grounds relied upon by Limak for setting aside the award. Any assessment of the substantive challenge should therefore await subsequent court decisions rather than be inferred from the opening of proceedings.
Lions Lawyers advises Ukrainian and international clients on international commercial arbitration, challenges to arbitral awards, recognition and enforcement, and cross-border disputes involving Ukraine.