From 2025 to 2026: Dispute Resolution in Ukraine

Iryna Kobets, Partner at LCF Law Group, shares her insights with CEE Legal Matters on the latest dispute resolution trends in Ukraine and what to expect from 2025 to 2026.

CEELM: How has the disputes landscape in Ukraine evolved recently, and how would you describe the current environment?

Iryna Kobets: Over the past two years, Ukraine has seen a structural increase in disputes across all jurisdictions. This is not a temporary spike, but a systemic shift.

In 2025, civil courts received 771,749 cases compared to 555,338 in 2024 (+39%). Commercial courts handled 67,098 business disputes (+10%), while administrative courts registered 463,760 cases (+13%). The Supreme Court’s statistics confirm the same upward trajectory.

The drivers are multifactorial. The war has disrupted economic ties, triggered contractual defaults, and accelerated business and population relocation. At the same time, regulatory volatility and evolving court practice have reduced predictability. Importantly, access to justice remains high: digitalization and online proceedings have significantly lowered procedural costs.

The structure of disputes is equally telling. More than 56% of civil cases relate to loans and deposits, reflecting increased financial pressure on households. Family disputes remain a significant category (157,670 cases, approximately 20%), though after a sharp spike at the beginning of the war, they are now in gradual decline.

In commercial courts, over 30% of cases concern insolvency. Personal bankruptcy filings grew by 44% year-on-year, indicating broader solvency challenges. At the same time, corporate and antitrust disputes are increasing, reflecting market reallocation and regulatory pressure. Meanwhile, the number of credit-related disputes is decreasing, in line with subdued lending market activity.

Overall, Ukraine’s disputes market is not only growing but also becoming structurally more complex.

CEELM: Are clients becoming more inclined to litigate, or are they turning more often to alternative dispute resolution? What’s driving that behavior?

Iryna Kobets: Ukraine offers a broad range of ADR mechanisms, including commercial arbitration, domestic arbitration courts, judge-led settlement procedures, and mediation. However, the jurisdiction remains predominantly litigation-driven.

While mediation is institutionally strengthened by dedicated law, mediation centers, and visible court engagement, its practical uptake remains limited.

The system of domestic arbitration courts requires systemic reform. Awareness of these mechanisms and, more importantly, trust in them remain relatively low. This is largely linked to the negative experience of their widespread use in banking disputes following the 2009 banking crisis.

As for judge-led settlement procedures, in 2025, only a small number of such proceedings resulted in actual reconciliation. The dual role of judges as both adjudicators and mediators continues to be perceived cautiously by parties.

By contrast, international commercial arbitration is growing compared to the pre-war period. This reflects cross-border commercial disputes and consistent pro-arbitration support from Ukrainian courts.

The key drivers of the continued preference for litigation are legal culture and trust. Ukrainian businesses have historically relied on courts as their primary mechanism for dispute resolution. That paradigm is evolving, but gradually.

CEELM: Have any recent or upcoming legal changes started to affect how disputes are brought or handled in practice?

Iryna Kobets: Legislative transformation is already reshaping dispute resolution, with European integration serving as the primary driver.

In 2025, the repeal of the Commercial Code marked a fundamental shift away from Soviet-era economic regulation toward a unified private-law framework aligned with European corporate governance standards. This will directly affect corporate and state-owned enterprise disputes. In early 2026, the Soviet-era Housing Code was replaced, and further reforms of labor and civil legislation are expected.

In the short term, these changes are likely to increase disputes due to interpretative uncertainty, with the Supreme Court playing a key role in establishing consistent practice.

Sectoral reforms linked to wartime realities are equally significant. New legislation adopted in 2025 introduced credit and leasing relief for businesses whose assets are located in occupied territories or in active combat zones. Similarly, in February 2026, Parliament adopted specific rules addressing renewable energy assets located in temporarily occupied territories, following several years of extensive litigation.

This reflects an increasingly dynamic interaction between judicial practice and the legislature, in which courts crystallize legal tensions, and Parliament responds with targeted regulatory reform.

CEELM: Looking to the year 2026, which trends are likely to shape litigation and dispute resolution work the most?

Iryna Kobets: Looking to 2026, several structural trends are likely to shape litigation and dispute resolution work.

First, the practical consequences of large-scale codification reform. Transitional interpretation disputes are likely to increase before new standards stabilize.

Second, continued solvency-related litigation. Insolvency, restructuring, and credit disputes will remain central as businesses and individuals adjust to prolonged economic pressure.

Third, the state’s expanding regulatory footprint. Antitrust, energy, financial supervision, and sanctions-related disputes will gain further prominence as Ukraine aligns with EU standards and strengthens regulatory oversight.

Fourth, war-related litigation will remain a defining feature. This includes disputes concerning property damaged or located in occupied territories, the protection of the rights of servicemembers and their families, as well as criminal proceedings related to war crimes. At the same time, the institutional model of military justice remains unresolved and continues to be actively debated. The future architecture of military courts and specialized prosecutorial structures is likely to remain a topic of legislative and professional discussion throughout 2026.

Finally, the international dimension is expected to expand. As foreign investment gradually returns, international arbitration, investment disputes, and cross-border enforcement will become increasingly significant.

Iryna Kobets, Partner, Head of Dispute Resolution, exclusively for CEE Legal Matters