Latest developments on Litigation in Ukraine
LCF Law Group Partner Iryna Kobets points to a Ukrainian Supreme Court decision on the use of AI in contract interpretation. “In July 2025, the Supreme Court reviewed a case where the central issue involved the interpretation of provisions in a land lease agreement, specifically concerning the possibility of amending the rental fee terms,” she says. “Within this context, the Supreme Court – at the cassation level – for the first time addressed the admissibility of AI-generated information as evidence in judicial proceedings.”
“The respondent, seeking to overturn the findings of the court of first instance, filed a motion before the appellate court to consider responses generated by two AI systems: Grok (developed by xAI) and ChatGPT (developed by OpenAI). The respondent argued that these responses could support an alternative interpretation of certain contractual provisions. However, the appellate court denied the motion,” Kobets adds. “The respondent then filed a cassation appeal, asserting that the evidentiary review was incomplete due to the court’s refusal to examine the AI-generated outputs.”
“The Supreme Court emphasized that artificial intelligence may serve as a useful and auxiliary informational tool within the judicial system, but it cannot replace the role of judges or the established principles of relevance, admissibility, and reliability of evidence as defined under procedural law,” Kobets explains. “The court stated that judicial decision-making – whether explicit or implicit – must be carried out solely by judges. This function cannot be delegated or fulfilled by technological means. The autonomy of the judiciary must be preserved even when employing advanced digital tools.”
“This judgment marks the first Supreme Court decision on the merits of a commercial dispute in Ukraine that provided a legal assessment of arguments concerning the necessity of analyzing AI-generated positions during judicial review,” Kobets adds. “While the use of AI-based insights as an alternative informational source is expected to evolve, for the time being, such technology is regarded strictly as a supplementary tool that lacks procedural weight in substantiating or refuting facts within a case.”
Iryna Kobets, Partner, Head of Dispute Resolution, exclusively for CEE Legal Matters.
