Ukrainian Court Orders Militus-PL to Remedy Defects in ICAC Award Challenge
⚖️ MILITUS-PL SP. Z O.O. v UKRINMASH
📂 Case Details
Case Title: MILITUS-PL SP. Z O.O. v UKRINMASH
Case No.: 824/56/26
Court: Kyiv Court of Appeal
Date: 15 July 2026
Case Category: International Commercial Arbitration
Subject Matter: Setting Aside Arbitral Awards
Sub-Subject: Procedural Requirements – Certified Translations
Arbitral Institution: International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ICAC)
ICAC Case No.: 226/2025
ICAC Award Date: 20 March 2026
Background of the Dispute
The proceedings arise from an international commercial arbitration between Ukrinmash, a subsidiary of Ukrainian state company Ukrspetsexport, and Militus-PL sp. z o.o., a Polish company.
The underlying arbitration concerned Ukrinmash’s claim against Militus-PL for the recovery of penalties and damages. ICAC rendered its award in Case No. 226/2025 on 20 March 2026.
On 23 June 2026, Militus-PL applied to the Kyiv Court of Appeal seeking to set aside the ICAC award.
During its preliminary review of the application, the Court identified deficiencies in the supporting documents submitted by Militus-PL.
The Court’s Decision
The Kyiv Court of Appeal found that Militus-PL had submitted a copy of the ICAC award together with an unofficial Ukrainian translation. The company had also submitted an extract from the National Court Register of Poland confirming its legal status, likewise accompanied by an unofficial translation.
Under Article 455(4) of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, documents specified by that provision and drawn up in another language must be accompanied by a translation into Ukrainian certified in accordance with law, unless otherwise provided by an applicable international treaty.
The Court therefore found that the application did not satisfy the procedural requirements applicable to an application to set aside an international commercial arbitration award.
On 15 July 2026, the Court ordered Militus-PL to remedy the deficiencies by submitting duly certified Ukrainian translations of:
the ICAC award of 20 March 2026; and
the extract from the National Court Register of Poland confirming Militus-PL’s legal status.
The Court gave Militus-PL 10 days from service of the order to comply.
If the deficiencies were not remedied within that period, the application would be deemed not to have been filed and returned to the applicant.
The order is not subject to appeal.
Why This Decision Matters
The decision illustrates the formal requirements that a foreign party must satisfy when challenging an international commercial arbitration award before a Ukrainian court.
Importantly, Militus-PL had provided translations of the relevant documents. The procedural defect arose because those translations were unofficial and had not been certified in accordance with the applicable requirements.
The Court did not refuse Militus-PL’s application on the merits and did not determine whether the ICAC award should be set aside. Instead, it identified a curable procedural defect and provided the applicant with a specific period in which to remedy it.
The case therefore demonstrates that documentary formalities can affect whether and when a Ukrainian court proceeds to substantive consideration of an application to set aside an arbitral award.
Lions Lawyers’ Analysis
The decision provides a practical illustration of the distinction between procedural admissibility and substantive review of an arbitral award challenge.
Before examining the statutory grounds relied upon to set aside an ICAC award, the Ukrainian court verifies whether the application and its supporting documents comply with the requirements of the Civil Procedure Code.
For foreign applicants, this includes particular attention to translation and certification requirements. Providing an informal translation may not be sufficient even where the substance of the foreign-language document is clear.
The subsequent procedural history is particularly instructive. On 27 July 2026, the Kyiv Court of Appeal opened proceedings on Militus-PL’s application, indicating that the procedural obstacle identified in this order no longer prevented the challenge from proceeding.
The two decisions therefore demonstrate the operation of a curable procedural deficiency in Ukrainian arbitration-related litigation: the initial application did not satisfy the formal requirements, the applicant was given an opportunity to remedy the defects, and the set-aside proceedings subsequently progressed.
For international parties involved in Ukrainian-seated arbitration, document certification and translation should therefore form part of the post-award strategy from the outset rather than being treated as administrative formalities.
Lions Lawyers advises Ukrainian and international clients on international commercial arbitration, challenges to arbitral awards, recognition and enforcement, and cross-border disputes involving Ukraine.