Debts After the “Pause”: How the Courts Calculate Limitation Periods in 2026

For more than five years, a significant number of civil and commercial claims in Ukraine were subject to an unusual legal regime. First, the legislature intervened in the running of limitation periods because of the COVID-19 quarantine and later because of martial law. This period ended on 4 September 2025. For businesses, this means that time has once again become a factor directly affecting the ability to recover old debts through the courts.

New Supreme Court case law has also emerged in 2026, providing greater clarity on how courts approach this transition. Its significance goes beyond the formal three-year limitation period: for each old claim, its individual timeline must be reconstructed to determine how much of the limitation period had already elapsed before the special rules were introduced.

Why 4 September 2025 Became a Key Date

The general rule under the Civil Code of Ukraine remains unchanged: the limitation period is three years unless the law establishes a special period for a particular type of claim. Where an obligation has a specified performance date, the limitation period is calculated by reference to the expiry of that period. However, from 2 April 2020, this ordinary mechanism became subject to special regulation. During the COVID-19 quarantine, the periods established, in particular, by Articles 257 and 258 of the Civil Code were extended for the duration of the quarantine. Following the introduction of martial law, a similar rule was incorporated into paragraph 19 of the Final and Transitional Provisions of the Civil Code.

From 30 January 2024, the legislature changed the legal mechanism: instead of an “extension”, paragraph 19 expressly provided for the suspension of limitation periods for the duration of martial law. The final change came with Law No. 4434-IX, which removed paragraph 19 from the Civil Code and entered into force on 4 September 2025. Since then, martial law in itself no longer suspends limitation periods.

For a creditor, however, the practical issue is not merely this date, but the status of each particular claim when the special rules were introduced.

An Old Debt Does Not Automatically Mean an Expired Claim

A relevant example is the Supreme Court’s Civil Cassation Court judgment of 8 April 2026 in case No. 461/5935/23. The dispute concerned recognition of mortgagee rights and foreclosure on mortgaged property. The lower courts dismissed the claim on the grounds that the three-year limitation period had expired, reasoning that the right to seek judicial protection had arisen as early as 14 February 2019, while the new claim was not filed until July 2023. The Supreme Court disagreed with that calculation.

The Court noted that the lower courts had effectively disregarded the special rules applicable during the COVID-19 quarantine and martial law. The Supreme Court set out the relevant sequence: if the limitation period had not expired by 2 April 2020, it was subsequently extended for the duration of the quarantine, then under the martial-law rules, and from 30 January 2024 until 4 September 2025 its running was suspended. This conclusion is particularly important for disputes concerning older accounts receivable. Establishing the date on which the debt arose is not enough. It is necessary to determine how much of the limitation period had actually elapsed before 2 April 2020.

If the three-year period had already expired before that date, subsequent legislative amendments do not revive it. If, however, part of the limitation period remained unused, that remaining period must be taken into account after the special regime ended.

Commercial Disputes Confirm the Same Approach

Of particular interest to businesses is the Supreme Court’s Commercial Cassation Court judgment of 2 March 2026 in case No. 910/3848/25. The dispute involved substantial claims. Among other things, the claimant sought the consequences of invalidity of a transaction and recovery of more than UAH 231 million, including damages, inflation adjustments and interest.

The Commercial Cassation Court separately analysed the legislative transformation of the limitation regime. It confirmed that the quarantine-related extension applied from 2 April 2020 until 30 June 2023, that the period continued to be extended under the martial-law rules until 29 January 2024, and that from 30 January 2024 its running was suspended. This special regime ended on 4 September 2025, when Law No. 4434-IX entered into force.

Accordingly, the 2026 case law of both the commercial and civil cassation courts demonstrates a common approach: the period of special regulation cannot simply be disregarded when reconstructing the history of an obligation. At the same time, after 4 September 2025 creditors can no longer rely on an automatic “freeze” of limitation periods merely because martial law remains in force.

Different Claims Have Different Clocks

This leads to an important practical point. There is no single date until which all debts accumulated during the quarantine and wartime periods can safely be pursued in court in 2026. Where the limitation period began to run before April 2020, the portion of the period already used must be established. Claims arising later require a different calculation. Claims subject to special limitation periods, including claims for penalties, also need to be assessed separately. The limitation period should not be confused with the existence of the underlying obligation itself. In case No. 461/5935/23, for example, the Supreme Court reiterated that expiry of the limitation period for the principal claim does not in itself terminate the credit obligation or the mortgage securing it.

The debtor’s conduct may also be relevant. Under Article 264 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, an act demonstrating acknowledgment of a debt or another obligation interrupts the limitation period, after which it begins to run anew. A partial payment, a properly documented acknowledgment of indebtedness or an agreed debt restructuring may therefore materially change the calculation.

What Creditors Should Review Now

In 2026, work with old accounts receivable should begin not with the formal question of when the debt arose, but with reconstructing the complete legal timeline of each individual claim. Creditors should determine the date on which the right was infringed, the limitation period applicable to that particular claim, the portion of that period that may have elapsed before 2 April 2020, and the effect of the special rules applicable until 4 September 2025. Reconciliation statements, partial payments, supplementary agreements, correspondence and other documents capable of demonstrating acknowledgment of the debt should also be reviewed separately.