THE EXPERT’S OPINION

An article by Anastasia Ponych, a senior attorney at ESTER GUARDIANS, published in the nationwide professional journal *Yuridichna Gazeta*, is devoted to current trends in judicial practice regarding disputes over compensation for damages caused by the Russian Federation’s armed aggression.

The issue of compensation for damages caused by the Russian Federation’s armed aggression remains one of the most pressing for Ukrainian businesses. Since the start of the full-scale invasion, thousands of enterprises have lost production capacity, real estate, equipment, inventory, and the ability to conduct business operations.

While court practice in 2022–2024 showed a clear trend in favor of affected businesses, during 2025–2026 the courts’ approaches became more stringent regarding procedural aspects and the evidentiary record.

Does this mean that the courts have stopped supporting businesses? In my opinion, no. However, it has become much more difficult to win such disputes.

How Case Law Evolved After the Start of the Full-Scale Invasion

After February 24, 2022, the Ukrainian judicial system faced an unprecedented category of disputes—claims for compensation for damages caused by the aggressor state.

A key milestone was the decision of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court on April 14, 2022, in Case No. 308/9708/19, which determined that the Russian Federation bears responsibility for the harm caused to citizens and businesses as a result of armed aggression.

In effect, this legal position laid the foundation for the further development of judicial precedent and opened the door for a wave of such claims to be filed with Ukrainian courts.

Initially, the courts took a fairly favorable stance toward the plaintiffs. Court fees were waived, and claims were often granted even with limited evidence. The prevailing approach in practice was aimed primarily at ensuring access to justice for those affected by the war.

The “Alter Ego” of the Aggressor State: The Search for a Realistic Mechanism for Enforcing Judgments

One of the most interesting trends has been the application of the concept of the “alter ego” of the aggressor state.

The essence of this approach was to involve in the cases not only the Russian Federation, but also individual Russian legal entities that effectively perform the functions of the state or act in its interests.

From a practical standpoint, this mechanism appeared particularly promising. After all, the main problem in such disputes has always been not obtaining a court decision, but enforcing it.

Involving legal entities as co-defendants potentially opened up the possibility of enforcing judgments against their property, particularly outside Ukraine. That is precisely why many lawyers viewed the “alter ego” concept as one of the most realistic tools for actually obtaining compensation.

New Procedural Barriers

Over the past two years, judicial practice has gradually begun to change. One of the most significant changes has been the tightening of requirements for proper service of process on defendants.

Whereas courts previously allowed procedural documents to be sent to the official email addresses of Russian Federation agencies, they now increasingly require that a complete set of documents be sent through Russian diplomatic missions abroad, along with translations of all case materials. For businesses, this means additional time and financial costs. In cases involving compensation for damages, the volume of materials often reaches thousands of pages, which significantly complicates compliance with the relevant procedural requirements.

Courts Have Become More Demanding Regarding Evidence

Another notable trend has been the tightening of evidentiary standards. For a long time, expert opinions prepared in accordance with the Methodology for Determining Damage and the Amount of Losses, approved by Order No. 3904/1223 of the Ministry of Economy of Ukraine and the State Property Fund of Ukraine dated October 18, 2022, were effectively accepted by the courts as sufficient evidence of the amount of damage.

Today, the situation has changed. Courts are increasingly emphasizing that an expert opinion is merely one piece of evidence and must be supported by primary accounting records, financial statements, invoices, certificates of completion, and other documents that allow for verification of the validity of the claimed losses. In effect, this marks a return to the traditional standards of proof characteristic of commercial litigation.

Court Fees: A New Challenge for Businesses

The issue of paying court fees deserves special attention. For a long time, the exemption provided for in paragraph 22 of Part 1 of Article 5 of the Law of Ukraine “On Court Fees” applied not only to claims filed directly against the Russian Federation but also to disputes involving legal entities under the alter ego principle. However, at the end of 2025, the Supreme Court adopted a different approach.

The court concluded that the exemption from court fees applies exclusively to claims against the aggressor state, but not to claims against legal entities, even if they are considered its alter ego. The practical consequence is that plaintiffs in such cases are required to pay court fees under general rules. Given the value of the claims, in most cases this amounts to the maximum fee, which in 2026 exceeds one million hryvnias. For many businesses that have already suffered significant losses as a result of the war, this has become a serious barrier to access to justice.

What Can Businesses Expect Next?

As of now, it is clear that Ukrainian courts are gradually moving away from a simplified approach to adjudicating disputes over compensation for war-related damages. However, this does not indicate a change in the judicial system’s attitude toward businesses or affected individuals. Rather, it reflects a natural stage in the development of legal practice, as a new category of disputes moves from the stage of establishing basic legal approaches to the stage of developing clear procedural standards. For businesses, this means the need for more thorough preparation for litigation: building a comprehensive body of evidence, properly documenting losses, correctly identifying the circle of defendants, and factoring in potential litigation costs as early as the dispute planning stage.

In 2026, the key factor for success in such cases will no longer be the mere fact that harm was caused by the war, but rather the quality of the claim’s preparation and the plaintiff’s ability to substantiate their claims in accordance with modern standards of evidence. That is why professional legal support during the case preparation stage is now of decisive importance for achieving a tangible outcome and the subsequent enforcement of the court’s decision.