Challenging decisions of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine

Updated: November 2026

An AMCU decision finding a competition law infringement usually means a fine, and in bid-rigging cases a bar from public procurement as well. The fine can reach 10% of the company’s annual revenue. The time limits for a challenge are short and cannot be extended, so action is needed as soon as the decision arrives.

Types of cases

The decisions most often challenged concern:

anticompetitive concerted practices, above all bid rigging;
abuse of a monopoly (dominant) position;
concentrations implemented without AMCU clearance, including deals between foreign groups that meet the Ukrainian thresholds;
failure to provide information requested by the AMCU, or providing it late. This fine is imposed often, including on foreign companies that did not respond to a request;
unfair competition under the Law of Ukraine “On protection against unfair competition” (in Ukrainian).

The challenge procedure is set by the Law of Ukraine “On protection of economic competition” (in Ukrainian). Since 1 January 2024 it has applied as amended by Law No. 3295-IX, which changed the rules on challenge and enforcement.

Review by the AMCU

A decision of an administrative board or a state commissioner can be challenged within the AMCU itself. An application for review must be filed within two months of receipt of the decision, and this period cannot be extended (art. 57). The review may uphold, amend or cancel the decision. While it is pending, the payment period for the fine and the accrual of late-payment penalties are suspended (art. 56).

Internal review makes sense where the decision contains clear errors of calculation or legal characterisation that the authority is prepared to correct. It does not, however, extend the time limit for going to court, so a court claim is often prepared in parallel.

Court challenge

A claim to declare the decision invalid must be filed with a commercial court within two months of receipt of the decision. This is a strict time limit that cannot be extended, even for good reason (art. 60(1)). Decisions of the AMCU, its administrative board and state commissioners are challenged before the Commercial Court of Kyiv. Decisions of regional offices go to the commercial court of the relevant region.

The period runs from receipt of the decision. Where delivery fails, the law sets the point at which the decision is deemed received. It is therefore important to monitor mail sent to the registered address and publications on the AMCU website. It is very easy to miss the deadline because a letter “never arrived”.

The grounds for amending, cancelling or invalidating a decision are set out in art. 59:

the AMCU did not fully establish the relevant facts;
facts the AMCU treats as established have not been proven;
the conclusions in the decision do not match the facts of the case;
substantive or procedural law was breached or misapplied. A procedural breach counts only where it led to a wrong decision.

The court does not set the fine in place of the AMCU. It does check, however, whether the fine was calculated correctly under the Fine Calculation Procedure in force since February 2024. An error in the revenue used as the base, or in the aggravating factors applied, can justify amending the decision as regards the fine.

Enforcement and late-payment penalties

A fine must be paid within two months of receipt of the decision. After that period, the AMCU decision becomes an enforceable document. A penalty of 1.5% of the fine accrues for each day of late payment, capped at the amount of the fine (art. 56).

Where the company has gone to court in time, three protections apply:

opening proceedings to invalidate an infringement decision automatically suspends its enforcement while the case is heard, unless the AMCU in its decision or the court has ruled otherwise (art. 60(4));
while the case is before the court, including on appeal or in cassation, the payment period and penalty accrual are suspended;
the court may also separately suspend the effect of the AMCU decision where there are sufficient grounds (art. 60(5)). The Supreme Court distinguishes suspension of a decision’s effect from suspension of its enforcement, so the application should be framed around the specific consequences that need to be blocked.

The courts do not treat the listing of a company among procurement offenders as enforcement of the decision. It therefore cannot be suspended in this way, and that risk has to be assessed separately.

Evidence

The evidence in these cases is usually difficult for businesses. The AMCU relies on similarities in tender documents, shared IP addresses, common contact persons and financial links between bidders. The answer is to explain the economic logic of the company’s conduct, using an independent economic opinion, a market study and documents showing that the bidders acted independently. These materials are best prepared while the case is still before the AMCU, because the court looks more critically at new evidence that was never put to the authority.

The law also offers ways to reduce liability before the AMCU decides. The settlement procedure gives a 15% fine reduction. The leniency programme gives full immunity to the first applicant and fine reductions to later ones. Whether to use them has to be assessed before the AMCU issues its statement of preliminary findings.

Our services

representation of companies in AMCU proceedings, including responses to information requests;
assessment of settlement and leniency options;
applications for review of AMCU decisions;
challenges to decisions of the AMCU and its regional offices before commercial courts at all instances;
review of fine calculations and challenges to the fine element of decisions;
suspension of the enforcement and effect of AMCU decisions pending court review;
engagement of independent economic experts and preparation of market studies;
merger control support for transactions involving foreign groups, including AMCU clearance.