Lost Job Due to War — Is It Possible Not to Pay a Loan: What the Law and the Supreme Court Say

The full-scale war has significantly affected the solvency of citizens and businesses. Many borrowers lost their jobs, sources of income, or were forced to leave their place of residence. This has raised a practical question: can a person legally stop paying a loan by referring to martial law and the related economic difficulties.

The issue is particularly important for judicial practice, as credit disputes remain one of the most numerous categories of civil and commercial cases. Moreover, the war has brought to the forefront the issue of the relationship between contractual obligations, force majeure, and special legislative guarantees for certain categories of debtors.

Legislative Regulation

The basis of legal regulation is the provisions of the Civil Code of Ukraine regarding the proper fulfillment of obligations.

According to Articles 525 and 526 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, obligations must be properly fulfilled in accordance with the terms of the contract and the requirements of the law. Unilateral refusal to fulfill an obligation is not allowed unless otherwise expressly provided by law or contract.

Loss of job, reduction of salary, or deterioration of the debtor's financial situation are not grounds for terminating a loan obligation.

The mere fact of lack of income does not mean that the debt ceases to exist. Therefore, a borrower does not automatically acquire the right to stop paying a loan simply because they lost their job or source of income due to the war.

Force Majeure and Loan Obligations: What the Supreme Court Says

One of the most common arguments of debtors is the reference to force majeure circumstances.

Article 617 of the Civil Code of Ukraine provides that a person may be released from liability for breach of obligation if they prove the existence of a case of force majeure or irresistible force. However, this provision does not imply termination of the obligation itself.

In the practice of the Supreme Court, a consistent approach has been formed: force majeure may affect liability for non-performance of the contract but does not eliminate the debt itself.

In particular, in the Supreme Court ruling dated December 10, 2025, in case No. 916/4003/24, the court emphasized that even prolonged force majeure circumstances do not automatically extend the loan repayment term and do not release the borrower from the obligation to return the received funds unless otherwise provided by the contract or law. Force majeure may only be relevant to the issue of liability for delayed performance.

In the ruling of the Cassation Civil Court within the Supreme Court dated March 13, 2024, in case No. 686/16312/22, the court stressed that Article 617 of the Civil Code of Ukraine provides for release specifically from liability for breach of obligation, not from the performance of the obligation itself. The Supreme Court also specifically noted that the absence of necessary funds by the debtor is not directly recognized as a case of force majeure or irresistible force within the meaning of this provision.

A similar approach is observed in commercial jurisdiction practice. In the ruling dated June 7, 2023, in case No. 906/540/22, the court noted that even the introduction of martial law and the existence of a general letter from the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry regarding the Russian Federation’s military aggression as force majeure do not mean automatic impossibility to perform any contract. The party referring to force majeure must prove not only the existence of such circumstances but also their direct impact on the performance of the specific obligation.

The Supreme Court also emphasized that irresistible force must objectively make contract performance impossible, not just create difficulties or worsen the debtor's financial situation. Therefore, loss of job, income reduction, or other financial problems, even caused by the war, are not force majeure by themselves and do not release the borrower from the obligation to repay the loan.

Special Guarantees During Martial Law

Loss of job or other consequences of the war do not exempt from loan repayment, but the legislation provides certain guarantees for borrowers.

Thus, paragraph 18 of the Final and Transitional Provisions of the Civil Code of Ukraine establishes that during martial law and for 30 days after its termination, the borrower is released from liability for delay in fulfilling the loan obligation. During this period, penalties, fines, and other sanctions are not accrued or collected, and penalty payments accrued since February 24, 2022, are subject to write-off by the lender.

At the same time, such guarantees do not mean debt write-off. The borrower is still obliged to repay the principal loan amount, and the benefits provided by law mainly concern liability for delayed repayment.

Problematic Aspects of Judicial Practice

The main difficulty lies in proving the causal link between the war and the impossibility of performing a specific contract.

If a business was destroyed due to hostilities, assets remained in occupied territory, or the debtor effectively lost access to property, courts may more carefully consider force majeure arguments.

In contrast, a general reference to economic crisis, inflation, or job loss without additional evidence is usually not recognized as sufficient grounds for release from liability.

To substantiate the impact of the war on the ability to perform the obligation, the debtor may submit, among other things, dismissal orders, documents on loss of job or income, evacuation confirmations, damage or destruction reports, as well as evidence of loss of access to assets or their location in temporarily occupied territory. Such evidence is assessed by the court in conjunction with other circumstances of the case.

Thus, loss of job during the war by itself does not give the right to stop paying the loan. Current legislation and Supreme Court practice proceed from the fact that martial law, force majeure, or deterioration of financial condition do not terminate the loan obligation and do not exempt from repayment of the principal debt amount.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, Facebook page and Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.