Service of foreign judicial documents in civil and commercial matters is made easier in Ukraine
Dmytro Marchukov
IMPACTA LAW, Kyiv
Dmytro.Marchukov@impactalaw.com
Daryna Vasylieva
IMPACTA LAW, Kyiv
Daryna.Vasylieva@impactalaw.com
Introduction
Digitalisation of Ukraine’s civil justice system is reshaping an area that has traditionally seen little procedural change: execution of foreign requests for service of judicial documents in civil and commercial matters (the “Requests”). Although the statutory framework governing the Requests has remained largely unchanged, recent developments demonstrate that Ukrainian courts and the Ministry of Justice (the “MoJ”) as the Central Authority under the 1965 Hague Service Convention (the “Convention”) are adopting new – more liberal – approaches to how the Requests are carried out.
First, Ukrainian courts are increasingly relying on the Electronic Court System (the "E-Court") when determining whether the Requests have been duly executed. The E-Court has become the default channel for electronic communication between courts, parties and their representatives in Ukrainian litigations: attorneys, legal entities and most institutional litigants are required to set up and to maintain a registered electronic account (the "Electronic Cabinet").
Second, recent administrative practice of the MoJ has addressed a different, but equally practical, question under Article 3 of the Convention: whether foreign attorneys may be identified as the applicants in the Requests where the law of the requesting State recognises them as competent forwarding authorities. In at least one case so far, the MoJ accepted and processed a Request, in which the claimant’s US attorney (rather than the foreign court itself) was identified as the applicant.
Together, these developments point to a gradual shift in how the Requests are handled in Ukraine, even without any corresponding legislative amendments having been introduced. This article examines these developments and considers what they may mean in practice for parties seeking to effect service of foreign judicial documents in Ukraine.
E-Court and execution of the Requests
Under Ukrainian procedural law, the Requests are generally executed via physical handover of the respective documents either during a court hearing, or by an authorised court officer at the place of the recipient.1 In practice, the first method remains predominant, meaning that the actual execution of the Requests has historically depended on the recipient physically attending the court room.
Although the statutory framework has remained unchanged following the introduction of the E-Court, recent case law reveals two significant developments.
Electronic acknowledgement of receipt of the foreign judicial documents
The first concerns cases, in which the recipients confirm via the E-Court that the foreign judicial documents have been duly received and reviewed by them.
In Case No. 910/14408/24,2 the Kyiv Commercial Court (the “KCC”) considered the Request originating from the proceedings before a US federal court against Virtual Systems LLC. Although the respondent’s representative did not attend the respective hearing of the KCC, he did confirm via the E-Court that the Request and accompanying documents had been received in the respondent’s Electronic Cabinet and asked for the hearing to proceed in his absence.
The case indicates that the recipients’ electronic acknowledgement of receipt may satisfy the purpose of personal service without requiring their physical attendance of the Ukrainian court.
The same approach was subsequently adopted by the KCC in three further cases,3 thus, reinforcing the emerging line of authority.
Electronic notification and the statutory presumption of service
The second line of cases addresses a different situation. Here, the E-Court serves as evidence that the recipient is duly notified about the hearing of a Ukrainian court, at which the foreign judicial documents are to be served.
In Case No. 910/7172/25,4 the KCC considered the Request from a Polish court seeking to serve judicial documents upon Altcom Road Construction LLC (“Altcom”). The KCC verified that Altcom did set up and maintain the registered Electronic Cabinet and that the summons for the hearing had been delivered to it via the E-Court. After Altcom failed to either appear, or explain its absence at the hearing, the KCC proceeded to apply the statutory presumption of service via the E-Court. It accordingly treated the judicial documents from a Polish court as served upon Altcom and concluded that the Request had been duly executed.
Unlike in the first line of cases explained above, the KCC relied not on an express acknowledgement by a recipient but simply on electronic notification, which enabled it to apply the statutory presumption of service.
The same approach has also emerged within the court proceedings involving individual recipients (as opposed to corporate ones). In Case No. 638/7901/26,5 concerning the Request from a Dutch court, the Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Kharkiv (the “SDCK”) relied on the fact that the respondent’s attorney had access to the case documents via the E-Court and had received electronic notifications. Following the respondent's failure to appear at the respective hearing, the SDCK treated the foreign judicial documents as served and, thus, the Request as duly executed.
Taken together, the aforementioned Ukrainian court practice suggests an emerging judicial approach, under which the E-Court can provide a legal basis to establish that the recipient has duly received the foreign judicial documents.
Who may submit the Request? Recent practice of the MoJ
Article 3 of the Convention provides that the Request shall be forwarded to the Central Authority of the requested State (i.e. the MoJ for the purposes of this article) by “the authority or judicial officer competent under the law of the State in which the documents originate”. The Convention, however, does not define these terms leaving that for each Contracting State to determine who is authorised to act as its forwarding authority. The respective issue has a practical significance because the Request submitted by a person who is not a competent forwarding authority may be refused by the requested State.
The Country Profiles6 at the webpage of the Hague Conference on Private International Law demonstrate that the Contracting States have adopted different approaches on this point. In particular, in some jurisdictions (e.g. the US, Canada, Ireland or Botswana), attorneys acting on behalf of the foreign requesting litigant are expressly recognised as competent forwarding authorities for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention. By contrast, many other jurisdictions (e.g. France, Germany, Italy, Japan or Singapore) reserve this function to courts, court officers or other “classic” public authorities.
Neither the Convention, nor Ukrainian legislation expressly addresses whether Ukraine may accept the Requests submitted by attorneys from jurisdictions, which recognise them as competent forwarding authorities. Ukraine’s declarations to the Convention are likewise silent.
In the absence of express guidance, recent administrative practice of the MoJ offers a helpful indication as to how this question is addressed when a foreign judicial document needs to be served in Ukraine. In the respective case, the US attorney identified himself as the “Applicant” in the Request form prescribed by the Convention and submitted it to the MoJ. The MoJ, in its turn, accepted and processed the Request without requiring it to be submitted by the US court itself and forwarded it to the competent Ukrainian court for execution under the Convention.
Although this approach has not yet been reflected in the official guidance or express judicial opinion, it demonstrates that Ukraine is prepared to recognise as competent forwarding authorities persons designated as such under the law of the requesting State, rather than require that the Request originates directly from a foreign court, court officer or other “classic” public authority.
Conclusion
The aforementioned developments suggest that Ukraine is adopting a flexible approach to the execution of the Requests without the need to depart from its existing statutory framework. The growing reliance on the E-Court demonstrates how modern digital tools can facilitate the practical operation of the Convention in Ukraine, while the MoJ’s acceptance of the Request, in which a foreign attorney (rather than the foreign court or another public authority) identified himself as the applicant, reflects a pragmatic understanding and application of Article 3 of the Convention based on the law of the requesting State.
Whether these developments ultimately evolve into settled judicial and administrative practice remains to be seen. Even at this stage, however, they provide valuable guidance for foreign litigants and practitioners, as well as point towards a more practical and efficient model of cross-border judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters.
---
Footnotes
1 Article 370(1) of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine; Article 501(1) of the Civil Procedural Code of Ukraine.
2 Ruling of the KCC of 17 December 2024 in Case No. 910/14408/24.
3 Ruling of the KCC of 26 February 2024 in Case No. 910/1269/24; Ruling of the KCC of 28 November 2023 in Case No. 910/16117/23; Ruling of the KCC of 28 September 2023 in Case No. 910/14207/23.
4 Ruling of the KCC of 04 August 2025 in Case No. 910/7172/25.
5 Ruling of the SDCK of 21 May 2026 in Case No. 638/7901/26.
6 Hague Conference on Private International Law, 1965 Service Convention – e-Country Profiles, available at: https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/authorities1/?cid=17.
Notes
1. Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine.
2. Civil Procedural Code of Ukraine.
3. Ruling of the KCC of 17 December 2024 in Case No. 910/14408/24.
4. Ruling of the KCC of 26 February 2024 in Case No. 910/1269/24.
5. Ruling of the KCC of 28 November 2023 in Case No. 910/16117/23.
6. Ruling of the KCC of 28 September 2023 in Case No. 910/14207/23.
7. Ruling of the KCC of 4 August 2025 in Case No. 910/7172/25.
8. Ruling of the SDCK of 21 May 2026 in Case No. 638/7901/26.
9. Hague Conference on Private International Law, 1965 Service Convention – e-Country Profiles, available at: https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/authorities1/?cid=17.