Ukrainian Court Enforces ICAC Award in Swiss Buyer’s Non-Payment Dispute
⚖️ AGRODMYTRIVSKE LLC v TRANS TRADE RK SA
📂 Case Details
Case Title: Agrodmytrivske LLC v TRANS TRADE RK SA
Case No.: 824/30/26
Court: Kyiv Court of Appeal
Date: 13 August 2026
Case Category: International Commercial Arbitration
Subject Matter: Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards
Sub-Subject: Enforcement Against Foreign Award Debtor
Arbitral Institution: International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ICAC)
ICAC Case No.: 167/2024
ICAC Award Date: 26 February 2025
Background of the Dispute
The dispute arose from a 19 September 2023 supply contract between Ukrainian company Agrodmytrivske LLC, as seller, and TRANS TRADE RK SA, a Swiss company, as buyer.
According to the Kyiv Court of Appeal, TRANS TRADE RK SA failed to pay for goods supplied under the contract. The contract provided for disputes unresolved through negotiations to be referred to ICAC in Ukraine.
On 26 February 2025, ICAC rendered an award in favour of Agrodmytrivske, including USD 179,750.49 in unpaid debt and USD 8,987.52 for delayed payment.
The Ukrainian company subsequently applied to the Kyiv Court of Appeal for recognition and permission to enforce the award. Proceedings were opened on 26 June 2026, and the Swiss respondent was given one month to submit objections. No objections had been received by 13 August 2026.
The Court’s Decision
The Kyiv Court of Appeal granted the application and recognised and authorised compulsory enforcement of the ICAC award in Ukraine.
The Court noted that the debtor had not exercised its right to submit objections and found no grounds for refusing recognition and enforcement under Ukrainian arbitration and procedural law.
The Court therefore authorised enforcement against TRANS TRADE RK SA for:
USD 179,750.49 in unpaid debt for supplied goods;
USD 8,987.52 for delayed payment;
UAH 1,664 in court fees incurred in the enforcement proceedings; and
UAH 5,000 in legal costs.
The ruling took effect immediately upon being issued and may be challenged before the Supreme Court within 30 days.
Why This Decision Matters
The case provides a practical example of a Ukrainian court moving beyond the preliminary stage and actually granting recognition and enforcement of an ICAC award against a foreign company.
An important procedural feature is the allocation of the burden of proof. The Court stated that the party resisting enforcement bears the burden of establishing the applicable grounds for refusal. TRANS TRADE RK SA submitted no objections, while the Court found no grounds on which recognition should be refused on its own initiative.
The case also illustrates the importance of identifying a jurisdictional basis for enforcement where the foreign debtor itself is not located in Ukraine. The Court referred to Article 475(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, under which proceedings may be brought in Ukraine where the debtor has property in Ukraine.
Lions Lawyers’ Analysis
This decision illustrates the pro-enforcement structure of Ukrainian arbitration law rather than merely a favourable outcome for one award creditor.
Under Article 36 of the Law of Ukraine On International Commercial Arbitration and Article 478 of the Civil Procedure Code, refusal of recognition and enforcement is confined to specified grounds. The Court expressly emphasised that the burden of proving the relevant grounds rests on the party opposing enforcement.
The case is also notable from an asset and jurisdictional planning perspective. TRANS TRADE RK SA is a Swiss company, yet the creditor sought enforcement in Ukraine. Ukrainian procedural law permits the Ukrainian courts to consider an enforcement application against a debtor situated abroad where that debtor has property in Ukraine.
This reinforces a central practical point in cross-border arbitration: the location of the debtor is not necessarily the same as the appropriate jurisdiction for enforcement. Award creditors should identify where enforceable assets are situated and assess available enforcement jurisdictions as part of their post-award strategy.
The contrast with the KRAVE CORP case is also useful for your case-law database. KRAVE concerned interim protection of assets while enforcement remained pending; this case concerns the subsequent substantive stage at which the Ukrainian court recognised the award and authorised compulsory enforcement.
Facing an arbitration or enforcement dispute in Ukraine involving a Ukrainian counterparty or the Government of Ukraine? We provide initial case assessment, legal opinions and strategic advice based on detailed analysis of Ukrainian law, court practice and arbitration precedents. Get in touch to discuss your case.