Resolution of the Supreme Court in West Impex s.r.o. v JSC NNEGC Energoatom No. 824/131/25

In InWest Impex s.r.o. v Energoatom, the Ukrainian supplier dispute had already produced an ICAC award for the price of goods supplied under a 2021 contract. Energoatom lost before the Kyiv Court of Appeal on recognition and enforcement, then argued in the Supreme Court that enforcement would breach Ukrainian public policy because the goods came from a Russian manufacturer, Energoatom's Zaporizhzhia nuclear facilities were in occupied territory, and wartime moratorium and currency-control rules stood in the way of payment. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It held that Ukraine could enforce the award because the record did not show sanctions or Russian links for InWest Impex, InWest Impex delivered the goods before martial law, and Ukrainian wartime payment controls did not create a New York Convention refusal ground.

Background

InWest Impex s.r.o., a Czech company, and Energoatom's state-enterprise predecessor entered into a supply contract on 29 June 2021. Ukrainian law governed the contract, and the arbitration clause sent disputes to the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. The stated contract price was EUR 109,724. The manufacturer of the goods was Tanais LLC in Volgodonsk, Russia.

Energoatom's non-payment led InWest Impex to start ICAC proceedings in January 2025. On 9 July 2025, the sole arbitrator awarded InWest Impex EUR 109,724 in principal, EUR 8,342.04 in three-percent annual interest, and EUR 5,361.58 for arbitration-fee reimbursement, for a total of EUR 123,427.62. The award became final on 9 July 2025.

InWest Impex then applied to the Kyiv Court of Appeal for recognition, permission to enforce, and a writ of execution. On 3 February 2026, that court granted the application and issued the writ.

Energoatom appealed on a public-policy theory directed at enforcement itself. The company relied on the occupation of Enerhodar, the Russian origin of the goods, Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 187 "On ensuring the protection of national interests in relation to future claims by the State of Ukraine arising from the military aggression of the Russian Federation", National Bank currency restrictions, uncertainty about InWest Impex's ultimate beneficial owners, and the importance of Energoatom's nuclear-energy functions.

The Court's Decision

The Supreme Court began with the enforcement stage. A court dealing with recognition and enforcement of an international commercial arbitral award does not review the merits of the award or rewrite it. It checks the application documents, timing, procedural requirements, and the limited refusal grounds in Article V of the New York Convention, Article 36 of the Ukrainian International Commercial Arbitration Law, and Article 478 of the Civil Procedure Code.

On the consequences of refusing enforcement without a statutory ground, the court relied on Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v Greece for the point that blocking enforcement interferes with the award creditor's property in the awarded sums. It also treated its own 2024 Energoatom enforcement decisions as confirming that constitutional, arbitration-law, and civil-procedure rules on award enforcement have higher legal force than Cabinet and National Bank wartime payment regulations when the question is whether to recognise the award.

The public-policy objection failed. The court accepted that sanctions regulation after Russia's invasion is now part of the Ukrainian public-policy setting. That did not decide the case. InWest Impex is a Czech company and no Ukrainian sanctions were applied to it. In view of the court Energoatom had failed because it did not prove:

1. Russian-state ownership
2. ownership by a Russian citizen or Russian legal entity
3. a Russian recipient would receive the enforcement proceeds.

Resolution No. 187 did not justify refusal at the recognition stage. The Supreme Court treated it as a moratorium rule addressed to obligations involving persons connected with the aggressor state. Article V and the Ukrainian procedural provisions still controlled the refusal analysis. If later facts showed a Russian connection for InWest Impex, the enforcement stage could address execution. That possibility did not justify refusing recognition at the threshold.

The Russian origin goods argument also failed. Energoatom had not proved that InWest Impex would pass the payment to Tanais or another Russian entity. The court also noted that InWest Impex delivered the goods on 13 January 2022. That date came before Ukraine introduced martial law. The award enforced a pre-war contractual payment obligation. It did not require new buying from Russia.

Nor did National Bank currency restrictions bar recognition. The Supreme Court treated those restrictions as payment mechanics. During martial law, Energoatom could seek a separate National Bank permission for the currency transfer if the payment route required it. The need for such permission did not make the award contrary to Ukrainian public policy.

The court gave the same answer to Energoatom's institutional-importance argument. Energoatom's role in safe nuclear-plant operation and electricity supply was important, especially during the war. But that role did not release it from ordinary contractual obligations to pay counterparties for supplied goods.

Result

The Supreme Court dismissed Energoatom's appeal and left the Kyiv Court of Appeal's 3 February 2026 enforcement order unchanged. InWest Impex kept permission to enforce the ICAC award for EUR 123,427.62. The Supreme Court's decision was final and not subject to further appeal.