The Commercial Court of Cassation of the Supreme Court explained the difference between suspension of the effect and suspension of the enforcement of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine's decision

The court has the right to take measures to secure a claim under the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine and other measures in cases provided for by laws and international treaties. All issues related to the suspension of the effect of the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMCU), adopted in accordance with part 1 of article 48 of the Law of Ukraine "On Protection of Economic Competition," should be resolved by the commercial court considering the case on the invalidation of such decision.

The AMCU adopted the decision referred to in part 1 of article 48 of the Law of Ukraine dated January 11, 2001, No. 2210-III "On Protection of Economic Competition" (Law No. 2210-III) regarding the violation of competition law by the Company and the imposition of a fine (decision_1), as well as a separate decision recognizing the "main" decision as one whose effect is not suspended due to the commercial court initiating proceedings on the invalidation of the "main" decision (decision_2).

Before filing a claim to invalidate decision_1, the Company applied to the court with a motion for securing the claim, requesting the court to suspend the enforcement of decision_2; during the suspension of decision_2, to suspend the enforcement of decision_1, among other things.

The court of first instance partially satisfied the motion, suspending the enforcement of decision_2 concerning the Company. The appellate court denied the motion, stating that the court's right to suspend the effect of the AMCU decision under the special provision of Law No. 2210-III cannot be considered grounds for securing a claim under the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine.

The Commercial Court of Cassation of the Supreme Court, having reviewed the cassation appeal and leaving the appellate court's ruling unchanged for reasons other than those stated therein, noted that the court has the right to take measures to secure a claim under the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine and other measures in cases provided for by laws and international treaties, the consent to the binding nature of which has been given by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.

There is no universal algorithm for applying measures to secure a claim, as their application (or refusal) directly depends on the factual circumstances of each specific dispute.

According to articles 48, 56, and 60 of Law No. 2210-III, the concepts of "suspension of the effect of the AMCU decision" and "suspension of the enforcement of the AMCU decision" are not identical, which is determined by their legal nature and legal consequences.

The commercial court considering the case on invalidation of the AMCU decision adopted under part 1 of article 48 of Law No. 2210-III [the main decision], depending on the circumstances of the case and upon sufficient grounds, has the right to decide on the suspension of the effect of this decision, which will result in the suspension of its enforcement.

The ruling of the Commercial Court of Cassation of the Supreme Court dated March 26, 2026, in case No. 910/14711/25 can be found at this link.

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