How Can I Serve You? Service of Procedural Documents in Cross-Border Litigation and Its Implications in Ukraine

Introduction

A fundamental principle of civil litigation is that a defendant must be given proper notice of the proceedings and a genuine opportunity to present its case. Improper service of originating process may result in adjournment, dismissal or other procedural consequences in the court of origin, and can create a significant risk at the recognition and enforcement stage if the defendant was deprived of a proper opportunity to participate. For that reason, service should be treated as an enforcement issue from the outset rather than as a purely administrative step.

Why Service of Process Is Needed

The continuing expansion of the global economy and the ease of cross-border commerce mean that businesses increasingly become involved in legal relationships with foreign counterparties, sometimes without giving much thought to where a dispute may eventually be litigated. If a claimant commences proceedings against a defendant located abroad, one of the first procedural questions is how that defendant is to be validly served with the originating documents.

A fundamental principle of civil litigation is that a defendant must be given proper notice of the proceedings and a genuine opportunity to present its case. Competent courts therefore require the originating claim, together with the relevant summons or other procedural documents, to be served in a manner recognised by the applicable procedural law and, where relevant, by an international treaty.

Defective service may not always prevent a court from rendering a judgment, particularly where the law of the forum permits proceedings to continue in defined circumstances. It can, however, create a significant risk at the recognition and enforcement stage if the defendant was deprived of a proper opportunity to participate. A similar due-process concern exists in arbitration, although notice in arbitral proceedings is governed primarily by the applicable arbitration rules, the law of the seat and the New York Convention rather than by the Hague Service Convention itself.

The 1965 Hague Service Convention as the Main Multilateral Framework

The Convention of 15 November 1965 on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (the “Convention”) provides a standardised framework for transmitting documents for service abroad between its Contracting Parties. Each Contracting Party designates a Central Authority to receive requests for service and arrange their execution in accordance with the Convention.

Article 1 of the Convention applies in civil or commercial matters where there is occasion to transmit a judicial or extrajudicial document for service abroad, provided that the address of the person to be served is known. Where the Convention does not apply, service may instead be governed by another applicable multilateral or bilateral treaty or, in the absence of a treaty regime, by the domestic procedural rules of the states concerned.

Service Under the Hague Convention in a Nutshell

Each Contracting Party designates a Central Authority — in Ukraine, the Ministry of Justice — to receive incoming requests for service. Upon receipt of a compliant request, the Central Authority arranges service in a manner permitted in the requested state, either by a method prescribed by its domestic law or, where compatible with that law, by a particular method requested by the applicant.
The standard terms in the Convention forms are to be written in French or English, while the blanks may be completed in the language of the requested state, French or English. As a matter of Ukrainian practice, documents to be served should generally be translated into Ukrainian; according to the HCCH practical information, a translation is not required where the addressee is fluent in the language of the documents. If a request is defective, the Central Authority should promptly inform the requesting authority of the issue.

Once service has been effected, the competent authority completes and returns the Convention certificate, stating how, where and when service was performed and to whom the documents were delivered. If service cannot be effected, the certificate should state the reasons that prevented service.

A requested state may refuse to comply with a request for service only on the limited ground set out in Article 13 of the Convention — where compliance would infringe its sovereignty or security. Refusal cannot be based merely on the requested state claiming exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter of the dispute or on the fact that its internal law would not permit the underlying action.
In practice, service abroad can still present considerable difficulties, particularly where an addressee refuses to participate in the proceedings, changes address or deliberately attempts to evade service. In such cases, early advice from counsel in the requested state may be useful to ensure that the requesting court receives a reliable record of the steps taken and their result.
Improper service of originating process may result in adjournment, dismissal or other procedural consequences in the court of origin. If a limitation period expires in the meantime, a failure to serve properly can have particularly serious consequences.

Article 15 of the Convention addresses the situation where documents have been transmitted for service abroad but no certificate of service or delivery has been received. Under Article 15(2), a Contracting State may declare that its courts may nevertheless render judgment if all of the following conditions are satisfied:- (i) the document was transmitted by one of the methods provided for in the Convention; – (ii) a period of at least six months, considered adequate by the judge in the particular case, has elapsed since the date of transmission; and – (iii) no certificate of any kind has been received, even though every reasonable effort has been made to obtain one through the competent authorities of the requested state.

The Ukrainian Dimension of Service Under the Hague Convention

Ukraine acceded to the Hague Service Convention in 2001, and the Convention entered into force for Ukraine on 1 December 2001. It is not, however, the only possible instrument governing cross-border service. The treaty landscape has materially changed in recent years: the 1993 Minsk Convention ceased to have effect for Ukraine on 29 December 2023, while the 1992 Kyiv Agreement on the Settlement of Disputes Related to Commercial Activity ceased to have effect for Ukraine on 5 February 2023. Accordingly, the availability of bilateral treaties and other multilateral instruments must now be checked on a state-by-state basis.

Procedural requirements differ significantly from one jurisdiction to another and can affect both timing and enforcement strategy. Ukraine remains comparatively formalistic in its implementation of the Convention. In addition, Ukraine has notified the HCCH that, during the armed aggression and martial law, it cannot fully guarantee performance of Convention obligations in territories where hostilities are or were conducted or which are temporarily occupied by the Russian Federation.
One important distinction concerns Article 10 of the Convention. Ukraine has objected to all methods of transmission provided for in Article 10, including service directly by postal channels and service through judicial officers or other competent or interested persons. The Central Authority channel is therefore the principal route for service in Ukraine under the Convention, subject to other channels expressly permitted by the Convention or an applicable treaty.

Ukraine also restricts service through diplomatic or consular agents under Article 8: such service within Ukraine may be effected only on nationals of the state in which the documents originate. These reservations make it particularly important to check Ukraine’s declarations before relying on a method of service that may be valid in another Contracting Party.

Formal service through the Central Authority. The execution of incoming requests is governed by the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine and the applicable implementing rules. The Ministry of Justice transmits the request through its territorial system to the competent court at the addressee’s place of residence or the legal entity’s location and sets a period for execution. Where necessary, steps may be taken to establish the addressee’s address. According to the HCCH practical information for Ukraine, the average time for execution is approximately two to three months after receipt by the Ministry of Justice.

For formal service under Article 5(1), the Ukrainian court summons the addressee and delivers the documents during a court hearing. The recipient signs the relevant certificate, the signature is certified by the judge and the court records the service. The resulting information is then transmitted through the Ministry of Justice system for completion of the Hague certificate and return to the requesting authority. The HCCH practical information also confirms that informal delivery under Article 5(2) may be performed where the addressee voluntarily accepts the documents.
If service is not effected, the Ukrainian court records the reasons for non-service and the request is returned through the Ministry of Justice together with the relevant certificate. A foreign court should not treat such a return as automatically authorising a default judgment: whether the proceedings may continue without a certificate depends on the law of the forum and, where relied upon, compliance with the specific requirements of Article 15(2), including the minimum six-month period and reasonable efforts to obtain a certificate.

The administrative and court procedure is further regulated by the joint Order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine and the State Judicial Administration of Ukraine No. 1092/5/54 dated 27 June 2008, as amended. The current framework is designed to create a documented chain of transmission and a reliable record of whether service was completed, refused or could not be carried out — evidence that may later become critical at the recognition and enforcement stage.

Difficulties frequently arise where court correspondence is returned without actual delivery — for example, because the storage period expired or the addressee was not found. Such a postal return should not automatically be treated either as conclusive proof of proper notice or as conclusive proof that notice was defective. The decisive issue is whether the evidence, assessed under the applicable procedural and treaty framework, establishes that the defendant was properly and timely informed and had a real opportunity to participate.

Enforcement of Foreign Court Judgments in Ukraine: The Current Approach to Proper Notice

Recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments in Ukraine are based either on an applicable international treaty or, where no such treaty applies, on the principle of reciprocity. Under Article 462 of the Civil Procedure Code, reciprocity is presumed unless the contrary is proved.

The Civil Procedure Code sets out the grounds on which recognition or enforcement may be refused. A central due-process ground is expressly stated in Article 468(2)(2): enforcement may be refused where the party against whom the foreign judgment was rendered was deprived of the opportunity to participate because it was not properly and timely notified of the proceedings. The Code also requires, where the absent party did not participate in the foreign proceedings, documentary evidence confirming proper notification.

Recent Supreme Court Case Law

Recent Supreme Court case law adopts a fact-sensitive rather than purely formal approach. In its judgment of 15 July 2026 in case No. 638/6833/25, the Supreme Court reiterated that, where the document relied upon as proof of a summons does not show how and when it was served and the fact of service is disputed, the Ukrainian court should establish the actual circumstances from the available evidence and, where necessary, obtain the relevant service documents from the foreign court. The Court emphasised that notice of proceedings means effective information about the place and time of the hearing so that the party’s right of access to court is genuinely protected.

The same 2026 decision also illustrates the other side of the analysis: lack of personal physical receipt is not necessarily fatal where the record shows that the defendant had a real opportunity to be heard. The Supreme Court accepted, on the facts of that case, evidence of notice through an authorised representative, the representative’s participation in the foreign proceedings and the use of appellate remedies as supporting the conclusion that the defendant had not been deprived of the opportunity to participate.

Conversely, where a party specifically objects that it was not notified and the record does not establish proper and timely notice, Ukrainian courts are required to investigate that issue before recognising or enforcing the foreign judgment. In case No. 523/10192/23, decided on 10 September 2025, the Supreme Court held that the lower courts had acted prematurely by recognising a foreign judgment without determining whether the opposing party had in fact been notified of the foreign proceedings. The practical lesson is therefore not that personal service in a Ukrainian courtroom is invariably required, but that the claimant should be able to prove a procedurally valid and effective opportunity for the defendant to participate.

Conclusion

A defect in service can turn into an enforcement problem long after the merits of a dispute have been determined. If recognition or enforcement of a foreign court judgment is refused because the respondent was not properly notified, substantial time and cost may be lost and fresh proceedings may be required. In arbitration, inadequate notice may likewise create grounds for setting aside or resisting enforcement, including under Article V(1)(b) of the New York Convention, although the Hague Service Convention does not generally govern service in private arbitral proceedings.

Cross-border service of process is manageable, but it should be planned together with the enforcement strategy. A claimant should consider at an early stage where the defendant and its assets are located, which treaty or domestic regime governs service, what evidence of service will be available, and whether that evidence will satisfy the courts in the jurisdiction where enforcement is likely to be sought. Winning the underlying case is only part of the exercise; preserving the enforceability of the resulting judgment from the outset is equally important.

Key Takeaways

A defect in service can become an enforcement problem long after the merits have been determined – Ukraine’s Central Authority is the principal route — postal and private-agent service are not accepted – Service should be planned together with the enforcement strategy from the outset, not treated as a purely administrative step

If you are considering cross-border litigation involving Ukraine, our International Dispute Resolution team can advise on service strategy, enforcement and recognition proceedings.

Book a Meeting

References

• Ukraine withdrew from the 1993 Minsk Convention; it ceased to have effect for Ukraine on 29 December 2023. Ukraine also withdrew from the 1992 Agreement on the Settlement of Disputes Related to Commercial Activity (Kyiv Agreement), which ceased to have effect for Ukraine on 5 February 2023. See Law of Ukraine No. 2783-IX and Law of Ukraine No. 2855-IX.

• HCCH, Ukraine – Central Authority & practical information under the 1965 Service Convention (last updated 22 September 2025): https://www.hcch.net/en/states/authorities/details3/?aid=251. See also Ukraine’s declarations and reservations under Articles 8, 10, 15 and 16 of the Convention.

• Joint Order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine and the State Judicial Administration of Ukraine No. 1092/5/54 dated 27 June 2008, as amended: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/z0573-08#Text.

• Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, in particular Articles 462, 466 and 468: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1618-15#Text.

• Supreme Court: case No. [638/6833/25], 15 July 2026; case No. [523/10192/23], 10 September 2025; case No. [308/17585/23], 22 October 2025. See also case No. [686/11087/20], 23 September 2022.