Compensation of Damage Caused by russian Aggression

A broad range of claimants may be eligible, including natural persons (Ukrainian and foreign nationals), legal entities (private companies, state-owned enterprises, and other organisations or institutions), local authorities, and the State of Ukraine itself.

Eligibility and the appropriate route will depend on the type of claimant, the nature of the damage, and the date and location where the harm occurred. We recommend an early assessment to identify the most suitable avenue.

Compensable damage broadly encompasses physical destruction (buildings, infrastructure, and other movable and immovable property), financial losses (such as lost profits, business interruption, and the expropriation of investments), personal harm (for example, death, injury, forced displacement), and intangible losses (for example, loss of access to healthcare or education).

Different routes cover different categories – for example, the international compensation mechanism focuses on documented loss within Ukraine’s internationally recognised borders, while investment arbitration targets the expropriation of foreign investments.

A careful mapping of the damage to the available routes is essential.

As mentioned above, there are currently four principal routes for seeking compensation:

• International compensation mechanism – a multilateral, Council of Europe-based structure open to a wide range of claimants for damage caused on or after 24 February 2022.
• Investment arbitration – proceedings available to Ukrainian and foreign investors whose investments have been unlawfully affected, based on protections contained in applicable investment treaties.
• Ukrainian litigation – domestic court proceedings followed by cross-border recognition and enforcement of judgments.
• European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) – proceedings concerning human rights violations attributable to russia that occurred before 16 September 2022.

These routes are not mutually exclusive, and in some circumstances a parallel or sequential strategy may be preferable. The most appropriate course of action will depend on the type of the claimant, the nature of damage suffered, the remedies sought, and the relevant temporal and jurisdictional considerations.

Each of these mechanisms presents distinct challenges:

• International compensation mechanism. The timeframe for obtaining compensation remains highly uncertain, even if the treaty-based compensation mechanism is ultimately established and becomes operational. By way of comparison, the final compensation payments for losses arising from Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990–1991 were made only in January 2022, more than 30 years after the invasion. In total, the UN Compensation Commission paid USD 52.4 billion to approximately 1.5 million claimants. By contrast, according to the World Bank’s data, direct physical damage in Ukraine had reached USD 195.1 billion as of 31 December 2025, while reconstruction and recovery needs over the next decade are estimated at USD 587.7 billion. These figures illustrate both the unprecedented scale of the losses and the likelihood that any compensation mechanism may require a considerable period of time to process and satisfy claims.
• Investment arbitration. The high cost of proceedings, the resulting need for third-party funding, and the uncertainty surrounding enforcement prospects are the principal obstacles to pursuing investment arbitration. While tribunals have consistently issued awards in favour of investors in Crimea-related cases, it remains uncertain whether they would adopt the same approach in claims brought by Ukrainian or foreign investors whose investments are located in regions other than Accordingly, it cannot be stated with confidence that such tribunals would accept jurisdiction and rule in favour of those investors. Furthermore, the bilateral investment treaty between Ukraine and the russian federation (Ukraine-russia BIT) terminated on 27 January 2025. As a result, only claims relating to investments made before its termination may be brought under the BIT, which will continue to apply to such investments for a further ten years pursuant to its sunset clause.
• Ukrainian litigation. Significant uncertainty surrounds the prospects of obtaining recognition and enforcement abroad of compensation judgments rendered by Ukrainian courts. Numerous challenges may arise in this context, ranging from due process considerations – including the proper service of proceedings on the russian federation in circumstances where Ukraine and russia maintain no diplomatic relations – to issues of sovereign immunity, as discussed below.
• ECtHR. Compensation awarded by the ECHR is generally limited in scope and amount. In addition, claims may only be brought in respect of damage occurring before 16 September 2022. Furthermore, russia has a poor record of compliance with the Court’s judgments. According to the data available in the Register of Just Satisfaction, as of the date of writing, russia owes more than EUR 3 billion in inter-state and individual cases brought against it.

The mechanism is a three-part structure developed under the auspices of the Council of Europe:

• Register of Damage for Ukraine (RD4U) – established in May 2023 and fully operational. It records claims and evidence of damage caused by russia’s internationally wrongful acts on or after 24 February 2022. As of 24 June 2026, it has received more than 165,000 claims.
• International Claims Commission – established by a Convention opened for signature in December 2025 (signed by 39 states and the EU). It will review, assess, and decide on registered claims and determine the amount of compensation due.
• Compensation fund – the third and final component, yet to be established. Discussions on funding sources, including immobilised russian sovereign assets, are ongoing.

Filing with the Register is the essential first step and should not be delayed, given the ongoing war and the associated risk of destruction or loss of underlying documents.

Further information on the Register’s governance documents, rules and regulations can be found here.

Yes. RD4U has been accepting claims since April 2024 and continues to expand the categories of eligible claims.

Current open categories include:

• For natural persons: involuntary internal displacement; involuntary displacement outside of Ukraine; death of an immediate family member; missing immediate family member; serious personal injury; sexual violence; torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; deprivation of liberty; forced labour or service; forcible transfer or deportation of children and adults; damage or destruction of residential immovable property; damage or destruction of non-residential immovable property; loss of housing or residence; loss of gainful employment; loss of individual enterprise; and loss of access or control of immovable property in the temporarily occupied territories
• For legal entities and the State of Ukraine: damage or destruction of critical and non-critical infrastructure
• For legal entities: damage, destruction, or loss of assets

Additional categories are being introduced progressively, and the full list of claim categories eligible for recording is available here. We strongly recommend filing promptly, as the process of gathering and organising evidence can be time-consuming, particularly given the ongoing war and the associated risk of destruction or loss of underlying documents.

Claims must be submitted to the RD4U in digital format through the Diia web portal. Further information on the claim submission process is available here.

Investment arbitration is available to foreign and Ukrainian investors with standing under applicable bilateral investment treaties or multilateral instruments, allowing claims to be brought directly against russia before international arbitral tribunals. Ukrainian entities with assets unlawfully seised – for example, in Crimea – have successfully invoked this route.

There is positive prior practice of arbitral tribunals regarding the expropriation of investments in Crimea, in particular in:

• DTEK v. russia (2018) – USD 207.8 million;
• Aeroport Belbek and Kolomoisky v. russia (2015);
• Everest and others v. russia (2015) – USD 130 million;
• Lugzor and others v. russia (2015);
• Privatbank and Finilon v. russia (2015);
• Stabil and others v. russia (2015) – USD 34.5 million;
• Ukrnafta v. russia (2015) – USD 44.4 million;
• Naftogaz and others v. russia (2016) – USD 4.22 billion;
• Oschadbank v. russia (2016) – USD 1.1 billion

Another two disputes Ukrenergo v. russia (2019) and Akhmetov and Investio v. russia (I) (2019) are pending.

SCM Group v. russia (2023) and Akhmetov v. russia (II) (2024) are the first known cases that concern expropriation of investments in the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) and Luhansk People’s Republic (LPR) and are also pending. Oschadbank v. russia (II) (2026) appears to go even further, as it concerns “the loss of Oschadbank’s substantial assets and operations in the Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia Regions.”

In such cases, a jurisdictional assessment is a critical first step, together with exploring third-party funding options and developing a strategy for potential enforcement of any resulting award.

The principal challenges include: obtaining jurisdiction – russia contests arbitral jurisdiction on multiple grounds; russia’s non-participation – russia frequently refuses to engage in proceedings, requiring the tribunal to proceed by default; and enforcement – enforcing an award against a sovereign state requires identifying attachable assets in receptive jurisdictions.

Despite these hurdles, awards have been obtained, and enforcement actions are actively being pursued in multiple countries.

Early strategic planning is essential to maximise the prospects of eventual recovery.

Claimants may bring proceedings before Ukrainian courts – civil or commercial, depending on the type of the claimant – for compensation of pecuniary and non-pecuniary harm against the russian federation and subsequently seek recognition and enforcement of any resulting judgment in foreign jurisdictions where russian assets are located. Ukrainian courts have jurisdiction over claims arising from the aggression and have been actively entertaining such claims.

This route can be particularly accessible and cost-effective at the litigation stage, though enforcement against a sovereign respondent in foreign jurisdictions requires careful planning and jurisdiction-specific analysis. Such judgments may be taken into account by the future Claims Commission.

However, to date, there are no known cases in which this route has succeeded, largely due to the obstacles posed by russia’s sovereign immunity, including immunity from enforcement.

Most recently, in Zhniva v. Gazprom (2026), the Hague Court of Appeal held that russia cannot invoke immunity from jurisdiction to block the Dutch courts from examining whether a Ukrainian judgment against Gazprom may be enforced in the Netherlands. The case now returns to the District Court, which will assess whether the Ukrainian judgment satisfies the requirements for recognition under the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention – with the separate question of immunity from enforcement to be addressed asset by asset only if recognition is granted.

Yes, subject to an important limitation. Following russia’s expulsion from the Council of Europe, the Court retains jurisdiction over applications concerning acts or omissions that occurred before 16 September 2022 – the date on which russia ceased to be a party to the European Convention on Human Rights. Applications relating to events after that date fall outside the Court’s jurisdiction.

If your matter involves eligible pre-cut-off violations, we recommend seeking advice promptly, as the Convention’s admissibility requirements continue to apply, including the four-month time limit for lodging an application after all domestic remedies have been exhausted (as amended by Protocol 15).

russia remains under a binding legal obligation to implement judgments and decisions of the ECtHR concerning acts that occurred before 16 September 2022. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe continues to supervise the execution of those judgments.

In practice, however, russia’s record of compliance was already poor prior to its expulsion from the Council of Europe, and voluntary compliance is now even less likely.

At the same time, the Convention Establishing an International Claims Commission for Ukraine expressly provides that, in its decision-making, the Claims Commission must, where appropriate, take into account relevant judgments or awards rendered by courts, tribunals, or other adjudicative bodies established under international law. The Convention also requires appropriate measures to be taken to prevent double compensation for the same damage, loss, or injury.

Yes, though this area remains fragmented. Ukrainian law provides a number of quasi-compensatory mechanisms, assistance programs, and social protection benefits targeting specific vulnerable categories of persons. These include support for war veterans and their families; internally displaced persons; persons deprived of personal liberty; victims of conflict-related sexual violence; children affected by the aggression; and those whose housing has been destroyed or damaged.

There is no single unified domestic compensation framework as yet – the various initiatives are spread across different laws and programs – and the system continues to evolve.

For most commercial claimants and investors, the international routes described above will be the primary avenue. Domestic mechanisms are generally more relevant to individual victims and specific vulnerable groups.

However, businesses may be eligible to obtain partial compensation under certain circumstances.

Receiving domestic social assistance or compensation does not preclude a claimant from pursuing a claim through the RD4U or before domestic or international courts.

However, certain claim forms – for example, those relating to the damage or destruction of residential immovable property or the loss of housing or residence – expressly require claimants to disclose any compensation received from the Ukrainian authorities.

In addition, Law of Ukraine “On Compensation for Damage to and Destruction of Certain Categories of Immovable Property Resulting from Hostilities, Terrorist Acts, and Sabotage Caused by the Armed Aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine” (Law No. 2923-IX) provides that, upon receipt of monetary compensation for destroyed immovable property, the claimant’s corresponding claim against russian federation is assigned to the State or the relevant territorial community.

These mechanisms are intended to facilitate coordination between domestic and international compensation processes and to reduce the risk of double recovery.

Given the fragmented nature of the current landscape, identifying the applicable mechanisms requires a case-by-case assessment.

Key examples include:

• Harm to life and health: one-time monetary payments and ongoing social protection benefits are available under the Law of Ukraine “On the Status of War Veterans, Guarantees of Their Social Protection” (Law No. 3551-XII), and under the Law of Ukraine “On One-Time Monetary Assistance for Harm to Life and Health Inflicted to Employees of Essential Infrastructure Objects, Civil Servants, and Officials of Local Self-Governance as a Result of the Armed Aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine” (Law No. 2980-IX).
• Victims of explosive hazards: the Law of Ukraine “On Mine Action in Ukraine” (Law No. 2642-VIII) provides for measures to assist victims of mines and other explosive ordnance.
• Internally displaced persons (IDPs): the rights, freedoms, and legal interests of IDPs are governed by the Law of Ukraine “On Ensuring Rights and Freedoms of Internally Displaced Persons” (Law No. 1706-VII), which establishes IDP status and guarantees access to social services, housing assistance, employment, and healthcare.
• Victims of conflict-related sexual violence: Law No. 4067-IX “On the Legal and Social Protection of Persons Affected by Sexual Violence Resulting from the Armed Aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine and the Provision of Urgent Interim Reparations” introduces the concept of urgent interim reparations for recognised victims, without prejudice to their right to seek full compensation through other routes.
• Persons deprived of personal liberty and their families: the Law of Ukraine “On Social and Legal Protection of Persons with Respect to Whom the Fact of Deprivation of Personal Liberty as a Result of the Armed Aggression against Ukraine Has Been Established, as Well as of Their Family Members” (Law No. 2010-IX) provides financial assistance, healthcare, legal aid, and other protections for detainees, prisoners of war, as well as their close family members.
• Persons gone missing: the Law of Ukraine “On the Legal Status of Persons Gone Missing under Special Circumstances” (Law No. 2505-VIII) was amended in 2022 to extend its scope to persons who went missing in connection with the armed aggression, providing their families with access to social protections pending the establishment of the missing person’s fate.
• Children affected by the aggression: Law No. 3999-IX “On the Social Protection and Support of Children Affected by the Armed Aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine and on Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine Concerning the Streamlining of the Provision of Social Services and Benefits” establishes a dedicated framework of protections for orphaned children, children with disabilities caused by the aggression, and displaced or separated children.
• Destroyed or damaged housing: Ukrainian citizens are eligible to receive compensation for residential property destroyed or damaged as a result of hostilities under Law No. 2923-IX. This mechanism operates alongside the RD4U, and filing under one does not preclude claiming under the other.

At the same time, Law No. 4071-IX “On the Recording of Information Concerning Harm Caused to the Personal Non-Property Rights of Natural Persons as a Result of the Armed Aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine” seeks to systematise all data related to damages caused by the war to the personal non-property rights of individuals (including the right to life, health, liberty, etc.).

This system will contain information relating to: 1) affected individuals; 2) the harm suffered by them; and 3) the support provided to them, including the amount of expenditure incurred from state and local budgets, as well as from mandatory state social insurance funds, in implementing such measures.

Yes. The Export Credit Agency (ECA) administers a domestic compensation program for businesses under the Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 1541 in effect from 1 January 2026. It offers two distinct, voluntary mechanisms:

• Partial compensation for damaged or destroyed property. Businesses (excluding state/municipal enterprises) with property in designated higher-risk regions (Dnipropetrovsk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, Mykolaiv, Odesa, Poltava, Sumy, Kharkiv, Kherson, and Chernihiv regions may enroll in advance by paying a one-time fee of 0.5% of the declared probable loss. Only damage occurring after enrollment is covered; it does not cover pre-existing losses. Compensation is capped at UAH 30 million per business over the lifetime of the program. Claims may be filed once the damage has been recorded in the State Register of Damaged and Destroyed Property, except in respect of production equipment and utility infrastructure.
• Partial compensation for war-risk insurance premiums. Businesses that purchase property insurance specifically covering war risks (missiles, drones, air-defense debris, resulting fire/explosion/blast wave) may apply for partial reimbursement of the premium. Participation costs a flat UAH 5,000 fee, and compensation is capped at UAH 3 million per business per calendar year across all qualifying policies. Businesses that signed war-risk insurance contracts after 1 January 2026, but did not submit an application to join the insurance premium compensation program at the time of signing, may still apply to their insurer to join the program, but must do so by 1 August 2026.

Both schemes run for the duration of martial law and are administered by ECA (applications via info@eca.gov.ua). Filing a property-damage compensation claim under this program constitutes assignment of the business’s corresponding claim against the russian federation to the Ukrainian state, a mechanism similar in purpose to Law No. 2923-IX, designed to coordinate domestic and international compensation and avoid double recovery.

As of early July 2026, in the property damage/destruction compensation track, 139 applications for program participation have been approved, with a total probable compensation amount of UAH 2.67 billion. In the insurance premium compensation track, 63 applications have been submitted, with total insurance coverage of UAH 7.9 billion and a potential compensation volume of UAH 94.22 million. In May, the first four companies received partial compensation for insurance premiums totaling UAH 6.8 million. However, only UAH 1 billion has been allocated for the program in Ukraine’s 2026 budget.

In many cases, yes. The routes are not mutually exclusive, and a coordinated multi-track strategy can be highly effective – for example, filing with the RD4U while simultaneously pursuing investment arbitration or Ukrainian litigation.

However, some mechanisms may contain waiver, election-of-remedies, or fork-in-the-road provisions that may restrict parallel proceedings. In addition, issues of double recovery may arise where compensation is sought for the same loss through multiple mechanisms.

Care must therefore be taken to ensure that claims pursued in different fora are properly coordinated and that positions advanced in one proceeding do not prejudice another. A tailored claims strategy should be developed at an early stage to account for these interactions.

The most important immediate steps are:

• Document and preserve evidence: including official records documenting the destruction, photographs, valuation reports, title documents, financial records, and witness statements. Evidence may deteriorate, become unavailable, or be lost over time, and may prove critical to the success of any future claim.
• Assess your eligibility carefully: not every type of loss falls within the scope of each route. Obtaining legal advice at an early stage can help identify the most viable avenues for recovery.
• Be mindful of applicable time limits: certain procedural deadlines, such as the admissibility time limit for applications to the ECtHR or the 10-year sunset period under the Ukraine-russia BIT, are strictly enforced. Failure to act within the prescribed period may result in an otherwise meritorious claim being declared inadmissible or becoming time-barred. It is therefore important to identify and comply with all relevant deadlines at an early stage.
• Consider submitting a claim with the RD4U: this is a relatively straightforward first step that secures your participation in the international compensation mechanism while preserving the possibility of pursuing other available remedies.

AMV Law Offices has deep experience across all four routes and would be pleased to assist with an initial assessment of your specific situation.