Skip to content


January 30, 2006

WikiLeaks Link

To understand the justification used for the classification of each cable, please use this WikiSource article as reference.

Discussing cables
If you find meaningful or important information in a cable, please link directly to its unique reference number. Linking to a specific paragraph in the body of a cable is also possible by copying the appropriate link (to be found at theparagraph symbol).Please mark messages for social networking services like Twitter with the hash tags #cablegate and a hash containing the reference ID e.g. #06KIEV384.
Reference ID Created Released Classification Origin
06KIEV384 2006-01-30 15:11 2011-08-30 01:44 UNCLASSIFIED Embassy Kyiv
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.





E.O. 12958: N/A 

REF: 2005 STATE 202943 

1. Below is text requested reftel of the 2006 Investment 
Climate Statement for Ukraine. 

Begin Text: 
Investment Climate Statement 2006 -- Ukraine 

A.1. Openness to Foreign Investment 


When President Yushchenko took office in January 2005, he 
made improving the investment climate one of his top 
economic policy goals.  This led to a number of new 
government initiatives, such as creation a State agency 
for investment and innovation and a number of investor 
councils chaired by the President.  International 
investment companies rushed to take advantage of the 
improved mood and held several large-scale Ukrainian 
investment conferences in early 2005 both in Ukraine and 
abroad.  The President and other high-level GOU officials 
spoke at many of these conferences, including the World 
Economic Forum's "Mini-Davos" roundtable held in Kiev in 
June 2005.  In general, foreign investors reported 
increased GOU receptiveness to and understanding of 
investor concerns but few concrete improvements over the 
year.  Government re-privatization plans and closure of 
the Special Economic Zones (discussed later) also made 
investors wary. 

After eight years of decline following independence, the 
Ukrainian economy has been growing steadily since late 
1999 but with declining rates of growth at the end of 
2005.  Ukraine's GDP grew 12.1% in 2004 and approximately 
2.5% in 2005.  Growth is expected to rebound somewhat in 
2006.  Over the past few years, Ukraine has liberalized 
its markets, reduced regulation, eliminated most 
licensing requirements, eliminated most restrictions on 
foreign exchange and begun the transformation of the 
agricultural sector from state-run farms to private 
agriculture.  After years of hyperinflation and 
plummeting currency values, the national currency, the 
hryvnia, has been stable against the U.S. dollar for over 
four years.  The National Bank allowed it to appreciate 
about 5% in early 2005 under pressure from international 
financial institutions, which claimed the currency was 
undervalued.  Much remains to be done to achieve full 
economic liberalization.  Ukraine's economy is still 
shackled by corruption, poorly developed rule of law, 
over-regulation and excessive government interference in 
what should be private business decisions. 

Ukraine was not able to achieve its goal of entering the 
WTO in 2005. Yet, over the past year Ukraine made strong 
progress in its WTO accession, passing over a dozen 
pieces of important legislation to modernize its trade 
regime and signing 10 bilateral market access agreements. 
The legislation dealt with intellectual property rights 
for optical media, agricultural tariffs, insurance 
branching, auditing requirements, age-limits on imported 
buses and trucks, local content in automobile production, 
sunflower seed export duties, sanitary and phytosanitary 
measures, and technical barriers in trade.  The GOU has 
not yet enacted legislation on export, restrictions on 
scrap metal and hides/skins, sugar quotas, product 
safety, bank branching, attorney's citizenship 
requirements and foreign ownership in broadcasting 
companies, despite repeated attempts to secure approval 
of the legislation. 

Foreign investors continued to express little confidence 
in the Ukrainian court system.  For many years, Ukrainian 
courts have tended to strike down or ignore contractual 
provisions for international arbitration or that assign 
legal responsibility for dispute resolution to a foreign 
court.  The greatest number of investor complaints over 
the years have involved the State Tax Administration's 
(STA) selective enforcement of tax policy.  Businesses 
have claimed that STA local and regional branches use 
investigative authority to advance political or business 
interests.  New leadership appointed by the government of 
President Yushchenko and anti-corruption efforts seem to 
have paid off in 2005, however, as the number of such 
complaints have dropped.  Exporters have also been harmed 
in the past by the STA's failure to refund VAT payments 
on inputs in a timely fashion, but the STA improved its 
performance and settled most outstanding arrears in late 

Ukraine's law "On The Foreign Investment Regime" (1996) 
provides for equal treatment of foreign and Ukrainian- 
owned business with some restrictions in publishing and 
broadcasting.  Foreigners are prohibited from 
participating in the manufacture of weapons or alcoholic 
spirits.  A February 2000 law "On Removal of 
Discrimination in Taxation of Business Entities Founded 
with the Participation of Domestic Property and Funding" 
cancelled privileges granted to joint ventures by 
Ukrainian legislation with retroactive force.  A January 
2002 law "On Amending Certain Laws to Avoid Tax Evasion 
by Enterprises Founded with the Participation of Foreign 
nvestors" cancelled all government and court decisions 
providing certain privileges to JVs (also with 
retroactive force).  A January 29, 2002 Constitutional 
Court decision and a May 14, 2002 State Tax 
Administration letter caused the two laws to go into 
force and confirmed that tax privileges for joint 
ventures with foreign participation had been cancelled. 

In early 2005, Ukraine lifted all tax and tariff 
exemptions to investors in Special Economic Zones (SEZ) 
in order to stop large-scale misuse of the zones. 
Investors who suffered from the cancellation criticized 
the abrupt cancellation of the privileges and the absence 
of any compensatory provisions, and they said these 
actions destabilized the investment climate.  The GOU 
states it is developing a compensation mechanism for 
investors, but as of the end of 2005 has not announced 
one.  U.S. investors both with planned and existing 
investment in the SEZs faced substantial losses from the 
elimination of customs and tax privileges. 

Both a new Civil Code and a competing and incompatible 
new Commercial Code went into effect on January 1, 2004. 
Lawyers and judges continue to grapple with how to 
implement the two conflicting laws.  Existing legislation 
is also not fully compliant with the codes.  In 2005, the 
Ukrainian government proposed to annul the Commercial 
Code, but has not yet provided corresponding draft 
legislation to the parliament. 

On October 25, 2001, the Ukrainian Parliament passed a 
Land Code.  The Land Code provides for private ownership 
of land, facilitating the privatization of land for 
agricultural purposes, but also provides for a moratorium 
on agricultural land sale until January 1, 2008. 
Individuals will not be able to sell more than a total of 
100 hectares of land between 2008-2015.  The Land Code 
includes a 20-year moratorium on agricultural land sales 
to foreigners, though foreigners may own land plots on 
which company facilities have been built.  Efforts to 
cancel the moratorium have failed in the Parliament 
(Rada), Ukraine's parliament.  Such restrictions may 
delay the development of a functioning land market, but 
the overall picture is not entirely negative.  There is 
an active market in land leasing.  A July 2002, law "On 
Grain and the Grain Market in Ukraine," established 
investment, credit, tax and custom policies favorable for 
the grain market. 

A new Customs Code went into effect January 1, 2004, 
codifying uniform customs procedures for all goods, 
specifying elements of customs procedures, and creating a 
mechanism for submitting a preliminary declaration for 
customs clearance for those who declare items on a 
regular basis.  The Code widens the powers of the State 
Customs Service (SCS), granting its staff free access to 
the companies' premises where commodities subject to 
customs clearing are stored.  It gives the SCS the power 
to review foreign trade companies' financial and economic 
performance.  December 2005 amendments to the Customs 
Code and Single Customs Tariff brought Ukraine's customs 
regime almost fully into compliance with the WTO Customs 
Valuation and Rules of Origin Agreements. 

On July 1, 2001 the law "On the Customs Tariff of 
Ukraine" took effect.  Under this law only the Rada can 
introduce or change tariffs. The import tariff system of 
Ukraine has 21 sections, encompasses 97 groups of goods, 
and lists over 10,000 import duty rates.  Between March 
and July 2005, the parliament passed three packages of 
amendments to the Customs Code of Ukraine to decrease 
tariff rates.  These measures brought the normal average 
tariff rate down to 6.5 percent, or more specifically to 
13.8 percent (down from 19.7 percent) for agricultural 
goods and 4.4 percent (down from 8.3 percent) for 
industrial goods. 

Ukraine's anti-monopoly committee implements anti- 
monopoly, competition, and consumer protection 
legislation under the March 2002 law "On Protection of 
Economic Competition."  New companies and 
mergers/acquisitions face strict controls.  Most 
investments, joint ventures with multiple partners, and 
share acquisitions require the committee's approval.  The 
law requires that the Committee obtain a court order 
before entering private property.  Those violating fair 
competition rules may be fined up to 10% of the prior 
year's turnover.  If illegally gained profit exceeds 10% 
of income, up to three times the normal penalty can be 
collected.  Legal experts have expressed concern over 
restrictions on who may appeal a Committee decision. 


A transparent privatization law provides for the cash 
sale of majority shareholdings in state enterprises, open 
bidding procedures, and the use of independent financial 
advisers to assist Ukraine's State Property Fund (SPF). 
In practice, however, privatizations conducted between 
early 2000 and 2004 were non-transparent and arbitrary -- 
and were marked by heavy behind-the-scenes political 
interference.  In the months leading to the 2004 
presidential elections, the pace of privatization 
accelerated, including the highly controversial sale in 
May 2004 of Ukraine's largest steel mill, Kryvorizhstal, 
at the bargain price of USD 800 million.  The tender 
requirements were written in such a way as to ensure the 
victory of Ukrainian businessmen close to then-President 
Leonid Kuchma, including his son-in-law, despite bids 
from a foreign investor of over double the amount paid. 

In 2005, the new government of President Viktor 
Yushchenko undertook a review of such presumably corrupt 
past privatizations.  After court decisions invalidated 
the 2004 sale of Kryvorizhstal, the GOU conducted a new 
transparent tender open to international participation 
and resold the enterprise to Mittal Steel in October 2005 
for USD 4.8 billion.  Thanks to this sale, which made up 
97% of the USD 4.92 billion in privatization receipts 
through November 2005, these proceeds far surpassed the 
record USD 1.7 billion banked in 2004. 

Despite this one success, the Government did not 
articulate a cogent policy for much of 2005 regarding 
other suspicious past privatizations, creating 
uncertainty among business owners and prospective 
investors.  Various GOU officials floated contradictory 
proposals on the number of firms that might be re- 
privatized and the method for addressing previous 
questionable privatizations.  Most outside observers 
believe the absence of a clear policy damaged the 
business climate and diminished investment.  By the end 
of the year the GOU sought to repair the damage by 
calling for a new law that would respect property rights 
and giving amnesty to current owners who reach an 
amicable agreement with the Government to "pay up" the 
difference between the amount paid initially and the 
market value of the enterprise.  Although the government 
launched no concrete policy initiatives, President 
Yushchenko declared in November that Kryvorizhstal would 
be the last repeat privatization.  Courts, however, also 
declared in 2005 that the past privatization of a 
majority stake in another metallurgical concern, Nik
Ferroalloy, was illegal.  Nikopol Ferroalloy had been 
purchased by a consortium controlled by the son-in-law of 
then-President Kuchma.  In January 2006, the Supreme 
Court upheld the decision of the lower courts that the 
past privatization was illegal. No shares had yet been 
transferred to the state, as the consortium continued 
with tactics to block the decision, including announcing 
in late January its intention to appeal to the European 
Court in Strasbourg. 

Ukrainian law limits foreign participation in 
privatization of certain "strategic" enterprises (radio, 
television, energy, and insurance).  Foreign shares of TV 
and radio broadcasting and publishing companies generally 
may not exceed 30%. Legislation that would increase this 
share to 35% -- a part of Ukraine's WTO accession efforts 
-- failed in the Rada.  The Rada has authority to lift 
legislative restrictions on foreign ownership in specific 
instances and has done so on occasion. 

Ukraine is not a signatory to the WTO Agreement on 
Government Procurement but is negotiating WTO accession. 
A March 2000 government procurement law favors Ukrainian 
bidders on contracts to sell goods and services, 
affording a 10% differential to domestic bidders over 
foreigners in certain cases.  Foreign investors also 
complain about a lack of advance notice of rules and 
requirements for tenders, covert preferences in tender 
awards, hidden conditions on awards that are not defined 
in tender announcements, partiality towards domestic 
investors, and an inability to resolve grievances and 
disputes.  For example, a U.S. company reported it 
planned to sue Ukraine's Ministry of Foreign Affairs 
after alleged irregularities in a December 2005 tender 
for a public relations contract, which a local company 
won.  The American Chamber of Commerce in Kiev has 
reported that many firms are reluctant to pursue GOU 
procurement opportunities out of concern they will be 
unable to collect payment. 

A law "On Production Sharing Agreements" (PSA), effective 
October 1999, provides a legal framework guaranteeing 
that the terms of agreements between foreign investors 
and the GOU for natural resources development cannot be 
changed once an investment is made.  However, additional 
enabling legislation is needed in order to harmonize 
Ukrainian laws with the PSA's joint exploration and 
production license.  Also needed are Cabinet of Ministers 
resolutions to establish special tax benefits envisioned 
by the PSA law, such as the amount of profit tax revenue 
the government will receive from the PSA producer. 

A.2. Conversion and Transfer Policies 


The April 1996 "Foreign Investment Law" guaranteed the 
"unhindered transfer" of profits, revenues, and other 
proceeds in foreign currency after taxes and other 
mandatory payments.  By intervening in exchange markets, 
the National Bank of Ukraine (NBU) maintains a de facto 
peg of Ukraine's currency, the hryvnia, to the dollar. 
As of January 2006, the hryvnia traded against the U.S. 
dollar at UAH 5.05 to the dollar, 5% stronger than last 
year's 5.32 average, after the NBU decided to allow the 
appreciation and temporarily suspended its defense of the 
old rate. 

While foreign investors may repatriate earnings, 
companies must obtain a license from the NBU for some 
operations.  For repatriation of hard currency, each 
transaction over $50,000 must be approved by the NBU. 
The NBU also charges a fee to review the transaction.  In 
December 2005, the NBU announced its plans to replace the 
licensing system with registration and reserve 
requirements on transactions with hard currency.  In view 
of increased hard currency inflows, the NBU on March 31, 
2005, canceled its 1998 surrender requirement that 
exporters convert half of their hard currency revenues 
into hryvnias.  Foreign exchange is readily available at 
market-determined rates, which generally do not vary 
greatly from the daily official exchange rate.  In 
February 2005, the NBU lifted the 2% limitation on 
deviation of bank exchange rates from the official 
exchange rate, which had been in effect since October 
2004.  A pension fund tax is levied on transactions to 
purchase hard currency.  In December the GOU reduced that 
tax from 1.5% to 1.2% of the amount of the transaction, 
effective January 1, 2006. 

Foreign investors have complained of cumbersome NBU 
regulations (NBU 2005 Resolutions 280 and 281) requiring 
them to open both hard currency and hryvnia accounts in 
Ukrainian banks in order to bring money into or out of 
the country.  Past investors seeking to liquidate and 
repatriate their investments must provide current 
documents from the financial institution that handled the 
original transaction confirming the provenance of the 
original funds.  In cases where these financial 
institutions have since closed, investors have difficulty 
repatriating their money legally out of Ukraine.  In an 
effort to discourage the inflow of short-term money, NBU 
resolution 291 in 2005 mandated that Ukrainian banks hold 
in reserve 20% of any loans from foreign lenders that 
have a maturity of 180 days or less. In response to 
complaints by investors, the NBU has formed a working 
group to revise these regulations. 

Investors convert their earnings into foreign currency 
through commercial banks, which purchase foreign currency 
on the interbank market.  Commercial banks may trade 
foreign currency in electronic form with other banks or 
participate in electronic currency trading at the 
Ukrainian Interbank Currency Exchange (UICEX).  To 
purchase hard currency, companies must provide their 
banks with a copy of their foreign trade contracts.  In 
an attempt to expedite purchases of hard currency, in 
March, 2005 the National Bank of Ukraine cancelled the 
requirement that companies obtain State Tax 
Administration permission to purchase hard currency. 
Commercial banks must announce their clients' intentions 
to sell on UICEX if the transactions exceeded USD 
500,000.  The law "On the Circulation of Promissory 
Notes" provides an opportunity for payments in foreign 
currency and issuance and circulation of promissory 
notes, in accordance with the 1930 Geneva Convention 
"Providing a Uniform Law for Bills of Exchange and 
Promissory Notes."  Residents may transfer up to USD 600 
abroad without opening a bank account. Illegal trade of 
hard currency is not a criminal matter but brings 
administrative penalties. 

A.3. Expropriation and Compensation 

Under the 1996 law "On the Regime of Foreign Investment," 
a qualified foreign investor is provided guarantees 
against nationalization, except in cases of national 
emergencies, accidents, or epidemics.  International 
institutions have recommended that definitions of 
expropriation and nationalization in the foreign 
investment law and bilateral treaties be expanded to 
include indirect and creeping expropriation.  Courts can 
determine whether owners of privatized enterprises failed 
to pay for an enterprise or to im
plement investment 
commitments in a privatization sale.  Failure to pay or 
invest allows the GOU, with court permission, to revoke 
ownership and resell the property.  The government's 
contradictory statements about what businesses might be 
subject to a review of past privatization (discussed in 
section A.1) had foreign investors concerned their 
property could be re-nationalized. 

In the context of Ukraine's WTO accession, the GOU in 
2005 eliminated less favorable treatment of enterprises 
with foreign investment with regard to the use of 
vouchers for VAT payments, and abolished local content 
requirements in the automobile industry. 

A.4. Dispute Settlement 


The Embassy continues to provide advocacy on behalf of 
U.S. investors.  For many years, investment disputes 
frequently have involved key problems with the investment 
climate such as the lack of adequate rule of law, fair 
and impartial dispute resolution mechanisms, enforcement 
of domestic court and international arbitration 
decisions.  Another problem is poor corporate governance 
(inadequate protection for shareholder rights, inadequate 
disclosure, asset-stripping, and voting fraud).  Dispute 
settlement remains weak.  Most U.S. businesses consider 
the local and national court systems unpredictable and 
try to avoid them.  Commercial contracts may permit the 
parties to use international arbitration courts to settle 
disputes.  Though Ukrainian legislation recognizes 
international arbitration decisions, in practice such 
decisions are very difficult to enforce in Ukraine. 

Corruption continues to lie at the heart of many investor 
disputes. Laws and regulations are vague, with 
considerable room for interpretation, providing officials 
at every bureaucratic layer ample opportunities for 
corruption.  Foreign investors are often seen as 
competitors to local firms and their government 


Ukraine has a civil law system relying on codes and 
separate legislative acts.  The court system comprises 
the constitutional court, which interprets the 
Constitution and laws of Ukraine, and a system of courts 
of general jurisdiction.  The courts of general 
jurisdiction are further divided into general courts, 
which handle civil, criminal, and administrative matters, 
and specialized commercial courts, which review business 
disputes, bankruptcy, and anti-monopoly cases.  Both the 
general and commercial court systems feature a hierarchy 
of local and/or regional courts and appeals courts.  The 
Supreme Court of Ukraine is the highest court in the 
system of courts of general jurisdiction. 

The law "On the Judiciary," in force as of June 2002 
creates four levels of courts -- local courts, courts of 
appeal, courts of cassation (higher specialized courts) 
and the Supreme Court.  This law also establishes an 
independent judicial department, the State Judicial 
Administration, to manage the court system, with the 
exception of the Supreme Court, which is self 
administered.  The law did increase the independence of 
the judiciary; but it also in some cases increased the 
powers of the President over the judiciary.  While the 
law envisioned the creation of a separate system of 
Administrative courts, this system is only now being set 
up.  The Supreme Administrative Court started its work 
only in the fall of 2005.  The Parliament adopted 
legislation in 2004, as well as an Administrative 
Procedural Code adopted by Parliament on July 8, 2005, 
that should govern the organization and work of the lower 
administrative courts when they are created. 

Currently, there are ongoing discussions within the 
parliament and the executive branch of government on how 
to strengthen rule of law and the independence of the 
judiciary. The newly created National Commission on 
Democracy and the Rule of Law has prepared the draft 
Concept of improvement of the judicial system and 
securing access to justice and the draft Recommendations 
for implementing a judicial reform in 2006. 


Investors criticize Ukraine's legal system for continuing 
problems of burdensome procedures, unpredictability, 
political interference, corruption, and inefficiency. 
Even when they obtain favorable decisions, investors 
claim the decisions are rarely enforced.  The enforcement 
responsibilities fall under the State Enforcement 
Service, which reports to the Ministry of Justice, but 
whose head is appointed by the Cabinet of Ministers. 

As of September 2005, the procedure for recognizing and 
enforcing foreign court decisions is regulated by Section 
8 of the Code of Civil Court Procedures of Ukraine, which 
replaced the 2001 law "On Acknowledgment and Execution in 
Ukraine of Decisions of Foreign Courts."  In accordance 
with the Code, a foreign court decision is recognized and 
enforced in Ukraine if such recognition and enforcement 
is provided for in international treaties, the mandatory 
nature of which has been endorsed by the Rada, or based 
on mutual ad hoc agreement with a foreign state whose 
court has rendered a decision that is to be enforced in 

The State Enforcement Service implements decisions 
rendered by foreign courts and arbitration tribunals in 
accordance with the law "On Enforcement Proceedings." A 
draft law "On Implementing Decisions and Applying 
Practices of the European Court for Human Rights" passed 
its first reading in the Rada on December 20, 2005.  The 
second reading is expected for 2006.  These measures show 
an encouraging trend toward conforming Ukraine's legal 
system to international norms. 


A new Civil Code and a competing and incompatible 
Commercial Code both went into effect on January 1, 2004. 
Lawyers and judges are now grappling with how to 
implement the two conflicting laws.  Despite heavy 
criticism of the Commercial Code by many GOU officials 
over the year, the Rada has as yet taken no action to 
amend or annul it.  The government again announced in 
late 2005 that it planned to seek repeal of the 
Commercial Code.  The Civil Code addresses private 
ownership protection and freedom of contract and 
entrepreneurship.  It provides a unified framework for 
economic regulations alongside legal reforms such as the 
Land Code, a newly passed law "On Mortgages," a law "On 
Mortgage Backed Securities," a law "On Financial Leasing" 
and a law allowing for the establishment of Credit 
Information Bureaus, together with a draft Joint Stock 
Company Law (which has not yet been adopted).  It also 
establishes rules for property relationships, including 
intellectual property, and creates a level playing field 
for entry and operation of business entities. 

A 1999 bankruptcy law provides for debtor-led 
reorganization, a meaningful moratorium on payment and 
collection of pre-existing debt, and a tax forgiveness 
provision.  The 1999 law provided thousands of heavily 
indebted industrial enterprises with an alternative to 
liquidation that did not exist under Ukraine's origina
1992 bankruptcy law.  Since then, many firms have reached 
amicable settlements with their creditors and established 
a workable schedule of debt forgiveness and repayment. 
Creditors protect their rights under the law by electing 
a creditors' committee, which is actively involved in the 
bankruptcy proceedings. 


Problems with corporate governance in Ukraine involve 
corporate ownership, shareholder rights, transparency, 
and disclosure.  The law "On Companies" offers scant 
protection for minority shareholders against insider 
dealing, asset stripping, profit skimming, and share 
dilution. Corporate finance is restricted.  Some examples 
of shareholder rights abuses include limited disclosure, 
capital restructuring without shareholders' consent, and 
shareholder voting fraud.  Nevertheless, a Company 
Register that was established in 2004 improved 
transparency.  A new "Joint Stock Company" law was first 
drafted in 1998 to remedy the pitfalls of the current law 
by introducing sound corporate practices that meet 
international standards.  It has failed repeatedly in 
parliament, despite increasing interest in the business 
community.  In October 2005 the Cabinet of Ministers 
submitted a new version of the draft law on Joint Stock 
Companies.  However, this draft has little support in the 
present Rada, because it eliminates the closed form of 
Joint Stock Company.  This form of ownership allows many 
so-called "Red Directors" to control their companies as 
minority shareholders.  It is likely that the new Rada 
will consider the October 2005 Joint Stock Company draft 
after the March 2006 parliamentary elections. 


Ukraine enacted an international commercial arbitration 
law in February 1994, which parallels commercial 
arbitration laws set forth by the United Nations 
Commission on International Trade Law.  Ukraine is a 
member of the New York Convention of 1958 on the 
Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitration 
Awards.  Some investors have problems enforcing foreign 
arbitration awards in Ukraine.  Foreign arbitral award 
enforcement procedures in Ukraine are regulated by a 
number of statutes and regulations, including the Section 
8 of the Civil Procedural Code and a law "On Enforcement 
Proceedings."  In early 2000 Ukraine ratified the 
Washington Convention, providing for use of the 
International Center for Settlement of Investment 
Disputes (ICSID), an internationally recognized mechanism 
for resolving investment disputes between investors and 
the GOU.  The U.S.-Ukraine Bilateral Investment Treaty 
(BIT), signed in November 1996, recognizes arbitration of 
investment disputes before the ICSID. 

A.5. Performance Requirements/Incentives 


There are no known cases of performance requirements 
imposed on foreign investors other than those clearly 
spelled out in privatizations conducted via open tender. 
Ukraine has eliminated measures that conflicted with the 
WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures 
(TRIMs) in the automobile industry and other sectors in 
the context of its accession efforts.  Some potentially 
conflicting practices remain in the agricultural sector 
and in legal services, for example.  Restrictions on 
imported raw cane sugar and minimum price regulation on 
domestic sugar beets and refined sugar may provide 
preferential treatment to the domestic sugar market.  The 
law "On Auditing" was amended in July 2005 to remove 
nationality requirements for auditing services in 
Ukraine.  Similar amendments to the law "On the Bar" to 
lift a nationality restriction in legal services failed 
repeatedly in the Rada. 

Ukraine modified its foreign investment law of 1996 to 
provide foreign investors a number of state guarantees, 
the most important being the unhindered and immediate 
repatriation of profits and stable regulations for the 
time of the investment.  Foreign investors are exempt 
from customs duties for any in-kind contribution imported 
into Ukraine for the company's charter fund.  Some 
restrictions apply and import duties must be paid if the 
enterprise sells, transfers, or otherwise disposes of the 


According to Ukrainian Presidential Decree No. 1008 dated 
June 30, 2005 (with amendment dated August 18, 2005), 
U.S. citizens traveling to Ukraine on short-term tourist, 
business or private travel do not need a visa to enter 
Ukraine.  Visas are still required of other categories of 
travelers including those who intend to study, reside, or 
work in Ukraine.  Short-term travelers entering Ukraine 
under the auspices of this decree can stay in Ukraine up 
to 90 days.  Any requests for extension of stay due to 
extenuating circumstances should be directed to the 
Ministry of Interior's Department of Citizenship, 
Immigration and Registration (formerly known as OVIR). 
Extensions are not automatic, however, and are valid only 
for continued presence in the country.  It is not 
possible to depart Ukraine and return on the extension, 
nor can an adjustment to visa status be made from within 
Ukraine.  U.S. citizens do not have to return to the U.S. 
to renew their visas -- they may apply for and pick up a 
visa at any Ukrainian Embassy outside of Ukraine.  Most 
go to neighboring Poland, Germany, or the Czech Republic. 
All foreigners -- except those with permanent residency 
status -- are required to have a work permit to work in 
Ukraine.  The laws of Ukraine "On Population Employment" 
and "On the Legal Status of Foreigners" define the 
procedures for obtaining a permit at the State Employment 
Service.  There is one exception:  the Law "On Production 
Sharing Agreements," allows foreigners under such 
agreements to be hired without permits. 

The Cabinet of Ministers Instruction No. 892, dated 
September 12, 2005, extended work permits from one year 
to the tenure of employment for foreign citizens working 
in managerial or specialized positions in Ukraine and 
individuals providing services without their commercial 
presence in Ukraine.  Employers must notify employment 
centers, police and the State Committee for Border 
Protection three days before revoking contracts with 
foreign nationals. 

Foreigners residing in Ukraine must register with the 
government. Effective July 1, 2002, foreigners entering 
Ukraine are registered automatically by the State 
Committee on Safeguarding Ukraine's Border at border 
checkpoints.  Foreigners legally coming to Ukraine for 
short periods no longer need to register at Internal 
Affairs Ministry Offices. 

A.6. Right to Private Ownership and Establishment 

The Constitution of Ukraine guarantees the right to 
private ownership, including the right to own land.  A 
new Land Code consistent with the Constitution was 
adopted on October 25, 2001.  The Land Code provides for 
foreign ownership of non-agricultural land and clarifies 
the rights of foreign investors. 

The major provisions of the Land Code address the right 
of individuals to own, buy
and sell land.  It classifies 
land into seven categories, based on potential use 
including agricultural, industrial and natural reserve 
lands.  The mix of state control and ownership rights 
varies with each type of land.  It is easier to own, buy, 
sell and mortgage industrial land than agricultural land. 
The Code forbids the sale of agricultural land until 
2008, and restricts the land ownership of any one legal 
entity (Ukrainian citizen or Ukrainian-based business) to 
no more than 100 hectares until 2015.  The Land Code 
prohibits foreigners from owning agricultural land.  The 
creation of a legal Ukrainian-registered business to 
purchase and manage land in Ukraine is not prohibited. 
The Land Code codifies the state's right to oversee 
private land transactions via registration, the court 
system and dispute mediation and broad government/state 
rights to "influence" the land market.  On June 5, 2003 
the Rada adopted a new law on mortgages.  The law allows 
the use of agricultural land as collateral and spells out 
foreclosure and eviction procedures.  Implementation of 
the law may take several years.  The U.S. Government via 
USAID sponsors a land titling initiative aimed at 
providing technical assistance both to reduce the cost of 
agricultural land titling and to provide direct support 
for the issuance of land titles.  On December 23, 2004 
the Rada adopted the law "On Warehouse Receipts" to 
expand lending to agriculture concerns using receipts as 
a collateral. 

Ukraine's law "On Ownership" recognizes private ownership 
and includes Ukrainian residents, foreign individuals, 
and foreign legal entities among those entities able to 
own property in Ukraine.  It permits owners of property 
(including foreign investors and joint ventures) to use 
property for commercial purposes, to lease property, and 
to keep the revenues, profits and production derived from 
its use.  The law "On Ownership" is not comprehensive and 
mechanisms for the transfer of ownership rights are weak. 
Some difficulties have arisen when foreigners acquire 
majority control of enterprises, with the government or 
the current management in some cases continuing to 
exercise effective control of company decisions. 

A.7. Protection of Property Rights 


During the last few years, Ukraine's policymakers have 
launched many initiatives to develop a mortgage market, 
which has resulted in a strong increase in the number of 
mortgages and laid the legislative and administrative 
groundwork for a functioning mortgage market.  In late 
2002 Ukraine adopted a law on "Withholding Land Shares in 
Kind."  In June 2003, a law "On Mortgages" was adopted. 
The GOU created the State Mortgage Institution (SMI) in 
October 2004 with authorized capital of UAH 50 million 
(USD 200 million), a liquidity facility largely aimed at 
putting downward pressure on lending rates by allocating 
capital efficiently.  The 2006 budget allocated UAH 1 
billion to issue state guarantees on loans to SMI. It is 
planned that the SMI will issue its first securities 
early in 2006.  The use of mortgages in Ukraine still 
remains limited by the scarcity of issued titles and 
limits on lending activity.  However, apartments, houses, 
office buildings, other types of buildings, and dacha 
plots have secured mortgages. USAID helped create of a 
pledge registry, the first of its kind in the former 
Soviet Union, which applies to individuals' obligations 
with regard to movable property and tax liens.  Though 
rudimentary, the registry is nationwide, providing a more 
transparent lending market for personal property. 


Ukraine was the only country named a Priority Foreign 
Country in the 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 Special 301 
reviews conducted by USTR.  The United States withdrew 
Ukraine's benefits under the Generalized System of 
Preferences (GSP) program in August 2001 and imposed $75 
million worth of sanctions on Ukrainian imports on 
January 23, 2002.  These latter sanctions, which affected 
a number of Ukrainian products, including metal, 
footwear, and chemicals, were lifted on August 30, 2005 
after the Ukrainian Government secured passage of 
important amendments to the Optical Disc Licensing Law, 
which went into effect on August 2, 2005.  USTR also 
announced in August 2005 that it would conduct an Out-of- 
Cycle Review (OCR) of Ukraine to assess Ukraine's 
implementation of the new amendments and its overall 
trend of enforcement since the time that sanctions were 
imposed.  The OCR will determine whether Ukraine's 
Special 301 status should be upgraded from "Priority 
Foreign Country" and subsequently consider whether 
Ukraine's eligibility for Generalized System of 
Preferences (GSP) benefits should be reinstated. 
Enforcement has been improving and the new amendments 
enhanced law enforcement's role and lowered the threshold 
for imposing penalties and sanctions.  However, Ukraine 
remains a major trans-shipment point, storage location, 
and market for illegal optical media produced in Russia 
and elsewhere, however, and needs to significantly 
improve its customs border enforcement to deal with these 
continuing problems. 

Ukraine is an active member of the World International 
Property Organization and a signatory to a number of 
international agreements and conventions.  As part of its 
ongoing efforts to negotiate accession to the WTO, 
Ukraine has adopted legislation, including a May 2003 
Omnibus package, to bring its laws into compliance with 
the WTO Agreement on Trade- Related Aspects of 
Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).  Some possible 
issues remain with Ukraine's treatment of foreign 
geographical indicators and test trial data.  Ukraine is 
in the process of strengthening its legal protections for 
pharmaceutical test data that pharmaceutical companies 
must submit to government authorities to obtain marketing 
approval.  Patent and trademark violations are common in 
Ukraine, and U.S. industries have reported widespread 
counterfeiting of pharmaceuticals and consumer products. 
The Ukrainian Ministry of Health reportedly does not 
check the validity of patents when it permits 
pharmaceutical sales in Ukraine.  In one case, the 
Ministry of Health allowed a European company to register 
the same drug for which a U.S. company held a valid 

The State Department of Intellectual Property (SDIP) is 
responsible for the formulation and implementation of 
Ukraine's intellectual property policy.  In order to 
increase IPR enforcement, the Ministry of Internal 
Affairs and the State Customs Service have also set up 
units to deal exclusively with IPR violations.  These 
under-staffed units have difficulty dealing with the 
large number of IPR infringements.  In many cases, the 
rights holder must actively engage with the Ministry of 
Internal Affairs or the State Customs Service to obtain 
enforcement.  Trademarked and copyrighted goods must be 
registered for a fee (USD 400 for the first good for the 
first year) in Customs' rights holder database in order 
to be guaranteed protection.  Optical discs, however, 
also receive protection un
der the import-licensing 
regime, so few recording or motion pictures companies 
bother to register.  Generally low confidence in the 
Ukrainian judicial system has meant few enterprises have 
brought private lawsuits.  Legal experts and government 
officials have called for the formation of a special 
patent court in Ukraine to adjudicate patent cases, but 
to date there has been no concrete action towards this 

A.8. Transparency of the Regulatory System 


While there has been progress on deregulation, the number 
of regulations, required certificates, and inspection 
regimes in Ukraine still impose a significant regulatory 
burden on private enterprise. In response to new 
presidential decrees No. 799 dated May 12, 2005 "On 
Liberalization of Business Activity and State Support of 
Entrepreneurship" and No. 901 dated June 1, 2005 "On Some 
Measures to Ensure Enforcement of State Regulatory 
Policy," the State Committee for Regulatory Policy and 
Entrepreneurial Activity (SCRPEA) undertook a review of 
regulatory acts.  By the end of 2005 the Committee had 
reviewed 9340 regulatory acts, 52.8% of which it decided 
to cancel. 


While the time and costs related to business registration 
have been reduced, the GOU still requires enterprises to 
obtain numerous permits to conduct business.  On January 
5, 2006 the law "On Permits' System in Economic Activity" 
entered into force.  As a result of this law, more than a 
half of required permits have been cancelled and the 
number of locations for obtaining permits has increased 
six fold.  The Yushchenko government also streamlined 
business registration procedures and now one can register 
business within two to three days instead of two to three 
weeks, as in the past.  "One-stop Registration Shops" 
have been expanded nationwide.  President Yushchenko also 
introduced a new "Single Window" for customs registration 


Ukraine applies both activity and import licensing 
regimes.  A Law "On Licensing Certain Types of Economic 
Activities" of June 2000 (and amended on January 17, 
2002) provides which activities are subject to licensing. 
Licensing applies to nearly 60 goods and services and is 
meant for protection of human, animal or plant health, 
the environment, public morals, national security, or for 
prudential regulation of the financial sector. 
Businesspeople continue to cite burdensome activity 
licensing requirements as major impediments to commerce 
in Ukraine.  Fees are described as high and compliance 
burdensome, particularly for telecommunications 
equipment.  Import licenses are required for some goods, 
primarily pesticides, alcohol products, optical media 
production inputs, some industrial chemical products and 
equipment containing them, official foreign postage 
stamps, excise marks, officially stamped/headed paper, 
and checks and securities. 


Proposed draft laws and regulations are available on the 
Rada website for public review, but there is no formal 
procedure for submitting comments. 

Current Ukrainian legislation envisages a mandatory 
financial inspection of a business entity per year and 
requires a minimum of 10 days notice.  Non-financial 
inspections (i.e. taxes, fire safety, sanitation, etc.) 
can be burdensome and impediments to doing business in 


Technical standards and certification requirements are 
imposed on many imports.  The certification body is the 
State Committee of Ukraine for Technical Regulation and 
Consumer Policy ("DerzhSpozhyvStandard").  Although 
Ukraine belongs to several international standardization 
bodies, such as the International Organization for 
Standardization (ISO), for many years it generally had 
not recognized foreign product certificates, even if they 
are issued in line with international standards, unless 
recognition is mandated through an international treaty 
signed by Ukraine.  Standardization procedures can be 
lengthy, burdensome, and expensive;standards can be 
vague, inflexible, and subject to frequent changes. 

Numerous certification bodies continue to operate 
independently without coordination or oversight.  Local, 
regional, and municipal authorities often require 
additional documentation beyond that required by 
certification bodies.  As of November 2005, 
DerzhSpozhyvStandard had a network of 109 accredited 
product certifying bodies for quality management systems, 
as well as about 780 testing laboratories throughout 
Ukraine.  Moreover, appropriate resources, such as modern 
analytical equipment and reactants, are not available in 
most laboratories.  Quality management systems are also 
needed to ensure testing is done within an acceptable 
margin of error.  DerzhSpozhynStandard's system includes 
28 state centers for standardization, systematizing 
weights and measures, certification and 27 territorial 
departments for consumer protection.  Companies seeking 
testing should first contact DerzhSpozhyvStandard. 

Importers can apply for three types of certificates: a 
certificate for a single batch of goods; a certificate 
for one year, which is valid for all imported goods 
during that year with one or two additional selective 
tests (this type of certification is the most common in 
Ukraine, covering 70% of issued certificates); and a 
certificate for 5 years, for which mandates inspection of 
production facilities. 

Ukraine applies a range of sanitary and phytosanitary 
(SPS) measures, many of which do not appear to be 
consistent with an international, science-based approach 
to regulation.  The certification and approval process is 
lengthy, duplicative, and expensive, with politics and 
corruption still often behind arbitrary application of 
regulations.  Amendments to the law "On Quality and 
Safety of Food Products and Food Raw Materials," the law 
"On Veterinary Medicine" and to other laws, to bring 
Ukrainian legislation in compliance with requirements of 
the WTO Agreement On Sanitary and Phyto-sanitary 
Measures, passed at the end of 2005.  Amendments to the 
law "On Plant Quarantine" remain outstanding. 

For many years, Ukraine has worked to bring its 
standardization system into conformity with the European 
Standards System.  The law "On Assurance of Conformity" 
is replacing mandatory certification for many types of 
products with assessment procedures in conformance with 
international standards and the "New Approach" directives 
of the European Union, including the principle of 
"presumption of conformity to standards."  On August 1, 
2002, the National Accreditation Body started operations 
to ensure the use of standards and procedures consistent 
with European Cooperation for Accreditation (ECA) policy. 

A.9. Efficient Capital Markets and Portfolio Investment 


The Ukrainian banking system consists of the National 
Bank of Ukraine (NBU) and commercial banks. The NBU is 
responsible for monetary circulation, registratio
n of 
commercial banks, and oversight of their activities. 

The banking sector plays a minor role in Ukraine's 
economy.  Bank capital is just over 6% of GDP. Total bank 
assets in Ukraine are about UAH 212.4 billion, with total 
loan assets of UAH 152.4 billion. Money lending and 
deposits grew at a fast 57% and 56% respectively in 
January-November, 2005. Despite rapid growth, bank 
deposits account for 28% of GDP, putting Ukraine in the 
'poor' category in the standard rankings of deposits. 
Interest rates continued to decline from 17.9% in 2004 to 
16.1% in 2005 making credit more accessible. On December 
1, 2005, Rada amended the "Consumer Rights Protection" 
law in favor of borrowers that lifted the limitation on 
early loan repayment.  Most banks have a high cost 
structure and as high net interest margins versus low 
operating profits. There are 164 banks operating in 
Ukraine, but a handful of banks dominate the market. The 
top ten banks control 58% of the loans outstanding and 
own 45% of the total capital of the system.  As the 
volume of consumer lending doubled during 2005, the share 
of loans exceeding one year increased to 53% of the total 
loan portfolio of the banking system, up from 46% last 
year.  Non-performing loans were registered at 2.3% of 
the total lending portfolio. 

In January 2002, the law "On Banks and Banking Activity" 
eliminated discrimination against foreign banks.  It 
entrusted the NBU with issuing banking licenses, and 
includes provisions to prevent money laundering.  The NBU 
sets minimum capital requirements each year to be met by 
the banks by the year-end. Current minimum capital 
requirements range from UAH 14.4 million to UAH 57.74 
million. Foreign licensed banks may carry out all the 
same activities as domestic banks, and there is no 
ceiling on their participation in the banking system. 
Foreign banks can operate via subsidiaries in Ukraine. 
The decision to allow foreign banks to operate via branch 
offices is pending before the Rada. Foreign banks 
increased their presence in Ukraine's banking sector 
during 2005 as the largest Ukrainian bank, "Aval," was 
purchased by the Austrian Raiffeisen bank in October and 
medium-size UkrSibbank by French BNP Paribas in December 

In May 2002, most provisions of the law "On Systems of 
Payment and Money Transfer in Ukraine" came into effect, 
making payments more flexible and modern, including the 
use of electronic signatures.  In July 2002, a law was 
passed which established legal principles for the 
provision of financial services and performance of 
regulatory and supervisory functions.  Ukraine remains a 
cash economy, but the use of credit cards is on the rise. 
From January through September 2005, the use of credit 
cards increased by 84% and use of ATM cards increased 
over 30%.  Scams to bilk ATM users of their money are 
common, so the Embassy advises visitors not to use ATMs. 

Only insurance companies registered in Ukraine may carry 
out insurance operations.  There is a lower minimum 
capital requirement for domestic insurance companies than 
insurance companies with foreign shareholders.  Foreign 
insurance companies can invest in local companies, but to 
operate locally they are required to open branch offices. 
July 2005 amendments to insurance laws will give foreign 
companies the right to operate in Ukraine through 
affiliates five years after Ukraine accedes to the WTO. 


Legal, regulatory, and financial disclosure systems for 
the securities market continue to lag behind 
international standards.  Basic market infrastructure 
exists as does a competent regulator, but the legislative 
basis for capital market operations is weak.  Rulings of 
the Securities and Stock Market Commission (SSMC) are 
advisory only and are not always followed by the courts. 
Investors continue to face low market confidence, high 
macroeconomic risk, transitional accounting standards, a 
lack of accurate company information, and inadequate 
protection of minority shareholders' rights. Deficiencies 
in regulations governing operation of registrars led to 
frequent cases of double registration of shares, 
resulting in low protection of shareholders' rights. 

Ukrainian law allows for the following types of 
securities: stocks (registered, bearer, preferred, and 
common), government and municipal securities, general 
obligation bonds, corporate bonds, savings certificates, 
depository certificates of the National Bank promissory 
notes, bond coupons, loan certificates, bank orders and 
savings accounts. 

According to the SSMC, last year there were 130 
collective investment institutions, 780,863 securities 
traders, 138 custodians, 362 registrars, and 12 self- 
regulatory organizations (six of which are associations). 
Eight stock exchange offices were registered in Ukraine. 
A Ukrainian securities industry broker/dealer self- 
regulatory organization (SRO) and its nationwide 
electronic trading system (PFTS) is the largest 
marketplace with 86.23% of secondary onshore trading. 
Market capitalization was UAH 74 billion (USD 14.06 
billion) in early 2005. 

Principle laws, decrees, and regulations governing 
Ukraine's financial markets include: "Law on Securities 
and Stock Exchanges" (1991), law "On Business 
Associations" (1991), "Presidential Decree on Investment 
Funds and Investment Companies" (1994), "Law on State 
Regulation of Securities Markets" (1995), "Amendments to 
Law on Business Associations" (1996), law "On National 
Depository System" (1997), "Law on Accounting and 
Financial Reporting" (1999), "Bankruptcy Law" (1999) law 
"On Collective Investment Institutions" (2001), and the 
"Law on Financial Services" (2001). 

A law "On Collective Investment Institutions" encourages 
the creation of mutual funds, introduces the idea of a 
licensed asset manager, regulates the establishment and 
operation of subjects of mutual investment, provides 
guarantees of ownership rights to securities, and 
protects rights of exchange market participants. 
Ukrainian Law provides a framework for the circulation of 
promissory notes in accordance with the Geneva Convention 
of 1930.  The absence of a consolidated national 
depository complicates transparent and efficient transfer 
of ownership of securities.  Although a 1997 law created 
a national depository, its function was taken over by 
other entities, and the Ukrainian government is currently 
considering reform options. 

The law "On Economic Entities" allows for a "stable 
shareholder arrangement" by permitting operation of 
close-ended Joint-Stock Companies, which give existing 
shareholders priority rights to buy out any, new or 
existing, shares in any company being sold.  The 
provision is used to protect against hostile takeovers, 
but its use is not seen as biased against foreign 
takeovers.  The draft law on the Joint-Stock Companies, 
currently pending before the Rada, would cancel the 

A.10. Political Violence 
A fraudulent presidential runoff election in November 
2004 brought
about the "Orange Revolution" in November 
and December 2004. The country saw massive nonviolent 
street demonstrations in Kiev and other major cities. 
Protesters blocked government offices and buildings. 
Some companies went on strike in support of the then 
opposition candidate, Viktor Yushchenko, but the strikes 
lasted just a few days. Disruptions in normal business 
activities were minimal.  The demonstrations were 
peaceful.  The likelihood of future widespread 
politically inspired violence that would affect foreign 
property interests remains relatively low. 

A.11.a Corruption 

Corruption pervades all levels of society and government 
and all spheres of economic activity in Ukraine and is a 
major obstacle to foreign direct investment.  Ukraine's 
new government made fighting corruption and smuggling top 
priorities, although much remains to be accomplished. 
However, corruption allegations at the highest levels led 
to a change in the Prime Minister and Cabinet of 
Ministers in September 2005.  Ukraine did improve on 
Transparency International's Year 2005 Corruption 
Perception Index, which was published in March 2005.  The 
country moved up to 107th place in 2005 on the list of 
the 158 countries from 122nd place out of 145 countries 
in 2004. 

Corruption stems from a number of factors: a lack of 
institutional traditions of transparent decision-making 
and societal understanding of the importance of corporate 
governance and transparency.  Low public sector salaries 
fuel corruption in local administrative bodies such as 
the highway police and tax administration as well as in 
the education system.  Miniscule salaries in the medical 
system mean that the state guarantee of "free medical 
care" has been largely supplanted by a system of informal 
payments where patients are expected to make a 
"charitable donation" to receive treatment.  In 2005, the 
GOU introduced legislation to increase local court 
judges' salaries significantly.  High-level corruption 
ranges from misuse of government resources and money 
laundering to non-transparent privatization and 
procurement procedures.  In short, corruption impacts the 
daily lives of Ukraine's citizens and important decisions 
taken at the state level. 

Ukraine's prosecution of corruption is based on the law 
"On Combating Corruption," which was passed in October 
1995.  The law is rarely enforced, and on the rare 
occasions it is enforced, it is normally aimed at lower- 
or mid-level state employees. 

Although government action is still limited, fundamental 
changes have taken place in the GOU's attitude towards 
corruption.  Gone are the days when GOU officials refused 
to admit that corruption existed in Ukraine.  Government 
and Rada officials now openly discuss the problem of 
corruption with USG contacts and with the press and 
public at large.  Ukraine signed the UN Anticorruption 
Convention in December 2003 but has not yet ratified it. 
Ukraine is not party to the OECD Convention on Combating 
Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International 
Business Transactions. 


As discussed above, improvement of the ability of 
investors to protect their property and contractual 
rights is crucial to the investment climate.  The 
judicial system needs to be reformed and its independence 
strengthened.  Enforcement of court decisions is also 

A.11.b.  Bilateral Investment Agreements 


The Bilateral Investment Treaty between the United States 
and Ukraine came into force on November 16, 1996.  The 
following countries have also signed bilateral investment 
agreements with Ukraine: Austria (1996), Argentina 
(1995), Armenia (1994), Azerbaijan (1997), Belarus 
(1995), Bulgaria (1994), Canada (1994), Chile (1995), 
China (1992), Cuba (1995), Croatia (1997), the Czech 
Republic (1994), Denmark (1992), Egypt (1992), Estonia 
(1995), Finland (1992), France (1994), Georgia (1995), 
Germany (1993), Greece (1994), Indonesia (1996), Iran 
(1996), Israel (1995), Italy (1993), Hungary (1995), 
Kazakhstan (1994), Kyrgyzstan (1993), Latvia (1997), 
Lebanon (1996), Lithuania (1994), Macedonia (1998), 
Moldova (1995), Mongolia (1992),  the Netherlands (1994), 
Poland (1993), Russia (1998), Slovakia (1994), Slovenia 
(1999), South Korea (1996), Spain (1998), Sweden (1995), 
Switzerland (1995), Turkmenistan (1998), Turkey (1996), 
UK (1993), Uzbekistan (1993), Vietnam (1994), Yugoslavia 
(2001), Yemen (2002), Saudi Arabia (2003), Albania 
(2004), Finland (2005), Panama (2005). 

A.11.c.  OPIC and Other Investment Insurance Programs 

The Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) in 
2004 resumed financing and insurance for projects in 
Ukraine.  The U.S.-Ukraine OPIC Agreement was signed in 
Washington on May 6, 1992.  OPIC is currently in 
negotiation with the GOU to recover monies paid out to a 
U.S. claimant whose investment was expropriated.  OPIC 
will review its activity in Ukraine in the near future if 
progress toward resolution of this dispute is not made. 

On July 20, 2002 the Board of the U.S. Export-Import bank 
opened up their facilities for short and medium-term (up 
to seven years) lending for commercial, and sub-sovereign 
projects.  Ukraine is a member of the Multilateral 
Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA). In 2005 MIGA issued 
an $18.1 million guarantee to Raiffeisen Bank of Austria 
to provide coverage against the risks of transfer 
restriction and expropriation its subordinated 
shareholder loan to Joint Stock Commercial Bank 
Raiffeisenbank Ukraine. 

A.11.d.  Labor 


Ukraine has a well-educated and skilled labor force with 
nearly a 100% literacy rate. The official (registered) 
unemployment level is low, 2.9 percent as of November 
2005, but these figures are misleading.  Most experts 
agree that reported unemployment is understated:  the 
real unemployment rate is closer to 8 percent. 


Wages in Ukraine are very low by Western standards but 
increased significantly over the past year.  In November 
2005, the nominal average monthly wage in Ukraine was UAH 
896.58 (USD 178), up 39% from 644.27 (USD 128) in 
November 2004.  The highest wages are in the financial 
and credit sectors while the lowest wages were paid to 
agricultural and public health workers. 


The minimum monthly wage was increased in 2005 to UAH 332 
(up from UAH 237 in 2004).  According to Ukrainian 
legislation, the minimum wage is adjusted whenever 
consumer price increases reach 5%.  The 2006 state budget 
stipulated further gradual increases of the minimum wage 
to UAH 350 as of January 1, to UAH 375 on July 1, 2005 
and to UAH 400 on December 1 2006.  The GOU announced 
that by 2007 the minimum wage in the country would reach 
the subsistence level. 


Ukrainian workers are generally accustomed to "top-down" 
management practices and therefore usually do not 
demonstrate initiative.  A younger, more independent-

minded generation is slowly moving into the workforce, 
and it is becoming easier to find professional personnel 
who function independently. 

Although investors may encounter government resistance to 
trimming the work force to an efficient level, across- 
the-board demands to maintain employment levels are 
disappearing.  Ukrainian enterprises often still maintain 
much of the social infrastructure of their immediate 
community (schools for local children, cafeterias, and 
medical facilities).  While many local officials are 
willing to work with businesses to identify social 
services that an enterprise must support, such 
arrangements should be clearly spelled out before 
investments are started. 

A.11.e.  Foreign Trade Zones/ Free Ports 

As of September 2005, there were 11 Free Economic Zones 
(FEZs) and 9 priority development territories (PDT).  A 
law "On the Amendments to 2005 Budget of Ukraine" dated 
March 23, 2005, cancelled import duty exemptions and 
other benefits to FEZs that had been meant to encourage 
investment and production of goods for export.  The IMF 
and the World Bank had repeatedly expressed concern about 
the zones, strongly supported the elimination of tax 
exemptions, and urged the GOU to resist pressures to 
reopen the tax loopholes closed in the 2005 budget 
amendments.  In cases of foreign direct investment, where 
the conditions for the privileges had been met by the 
investing firms, the IMF and the World Bank suggested 
that the GOU determine whether compensation may be due to 
some investors.  President Yushchenko reported the GOU 
was working on the development of such compensation 
mechanisms, but none had been put in place by the end of 


Porto-Franco FEZ in Odessa Port was a free port until all 
FEZs' privileges were cancelled by the 2005 budget.  In 
total, Ukraine has 20 seaports and 10 river ports located 
on the Black Sea, the Sea of Azov, and the Danube, 
Yuzhniy Bug and the Dnipro rivers.  They are currently 
under the authority of the Ministry of Transportation's 
Department of Sea and River Transport.  All seaports are 
state-owned with the exception of a small port that 
belongs to the Mykolayiv Alumina Plant.  All river ports 
are open or closed joint-stock companies. 

A.11.f. Foreign Direct Investment Statistics 


According to Ukraine's State Statistics Committee, 
foreign investment in Ukraine grew by 10.8% from January 
through September 2005.  As of January 1, 2005, the stock 
of FDI in Ukraine was USD 8.35 billion, which is USD 177 
per capita, one of the lowest levels of FDI in the states 
of the former Soviet Union.  Annual FDI in Ukraine's 
neighbor, Poland, was nearly 5 times as high.  Over nine 
months of 2005, foreign direct investment grew by over 
USD 932.2 million to USD 9.53 billion as of October 1, 
2005, which is USD 202 per capita. During this period USD 
1.32 billion in foreign investment entered Ukraine while 
USD 250 million were withdrawn.  Mittal Steel's October 
2005 purchase of the Kryvorizhstal Steel Mill represented 
USD 4.8 billion in FDI in Ukraine. 


In all, 117 countries invested in Ukraine.  As of October 
1, 2005 Ukraine's major investors included: Cyprus 
(15.3%), the United States (12.8%), the United Kingdom 
(11.0%), Germany (6.6%), the Netherlands (6.2%), Virgin 
Islands (7.4%), Russia (5.8%). 


Over the first 9 months of 2005, 17.4% of FDI went to 
domestic trade: 12.2% -- to food processing, 8.8% -- to 
real estate, 7.6% -- to the financial industry, 7.2% -- 
to machine-building, 5.3% to the chemical industry. 
End Text. 





Leave a Comment

Post tour comment here

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: