In the autumn of 2025, two wind power plants belonging to companies within the same renewable energy business group were damaged by russian attacks: one was effectively destroyed, while the other sustained severe damage.
To restore the equipment, settle accounts with contractors, and service their loan obligations, the companies relied on payments for electricity they had already supplied. These funds were due from a state-owned enterprise acting as the electricity purchaser.
The debt had been confirmed by court decisions, and enforcement proceedings had been opened. However, the companies approached the Business Ombudsman Council because there had been no progress in recovering the funds for a prolonged period.
The case was further complicated by several obstacles:
- The debtor submitted applications to the enforcement officer requesting the suspension of enforcement actions, referring to a special provision of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings” adopted in connection with martial law. This provision concerns amounts accrued due to late payment, including inflation adjustments, 3% annual interest, fines, and penalties. However, it cannot prevent the recovery of the principal debt, court fees, or legal costs.
- The debtor also applied to the court for a one-year deferral of enforcement, citing its difficult financial situation and the failure of its counterparties to make payments. The court rejected the application, noting that counterparties’ failure to meet their obligations to the debtor does not in itself constitute sufficient grounds for postponing the enforcement of a court decision.
- The state enforcement officer, in turn, referred to another wartime provision of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings”, under which the statutory time limits are suspended and begin running again once martial law is terminated or cancelled.
The companies filed a complaint with the Business Ombudsman Council regarding the enforcement officer’s inaction. They argued that the provision on the suspension of time limits could not justify complete inactivity on the part of the enforcement officer. Otherwise, court decisions could remain unenforced throughout the entire period of martial law, contrary to the principle that court decisions are binding.
The Council found the complaint substantiated, accepted it for review, and initiated consideration of the issue with the Ministry of Justice within the framework of the Expert Group.
As a result, the principal debt and court-related costs were recovered and transferred to the companies, amounting to more than UAH 170 million in total.
Enforcement of the claims concerning inflation adjustments and 3% annual interest was suspended due to the applicable special legal provision. Since the complainants’ primary objective — receiving the principal amounts awarded by the court — had been achieved, the Council closed the case as successfully resolved.
