{"id":5964,"date":"2026-10-31T09:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-10-31T06:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/svaroglaw.com\/?p=5964"},"modified":"2026-10-31T09:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-10-31T07:00:00","slug":"3-richnykh-inflyaczijni-penya-rozrahunok","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/svaroglaw.com\/en\/blog\/3-richnykh-inflyaczijni-penya-rozrahunok\/","title":{"rendered":"A counterparty isn’t paying: how to calculate 3 % per annum, inflation losses and the penalty for a lawsuit"},"content":{"rendered":"
3 % per annum<\/b>on the overdue amount for the entire period of delay (Civil Code, Art. 625(2))<\/div>
32 % per annum<\/b>double the NBU discount rate from 18 September 2026, i.e. the rate of the statutory penalty (Civil Code, Art. 549(3), second paragraph)<\/div>
1 year<\/b>the limitation period for the penalty, whereas for 3 % and inflation losses it is 3 years (Civil Code, Art. 257, 258)<\/div><\/div>\n

The 3 % per annum is calculated as debt \u00d7 3 \u00d7 days of delay \/ 365 \/ 100, and the penalty (penya) at the statutory rate as debt \u00d7 double the NBU discount rate \u00d7 days \/ 365 \/ 100, separately for each period in which a given rate applied. Inflation losses equal the debt multiplied by the product of the monthly consumer price indices of the State Statistics Service for the months of delay, minus the debt itself.<\/p>\n

Since 28 August 2025 the Commercial Code has no longer been in force (Law No. 4196-IX), and charges for late payment are governed by the Civil Code. The 3 % per annum and inflation losses remain in Article 625(2) of the Civil Code, and the creditor can claim them even if the contract says nothing about them. What has changed is the penalty: the Civil Code itself now sets it at double the NBU discount rate for late performance of a monetary obligation, while the contract may provide for a lower rate (Civil Code, Art. 549(3), second paragraph). The Civil Code has no six-month cap on the penalty like the one in Article 232(6) of the Commercial Code.<\/p>\n

But if the delay began while the Commercial Code was still in force, the Supreme Court still calculates the penalty under the old rules, even in 2026. We discussed what else has changed for contracts in our article on what businesses should check after the repeal of the Commercial Code<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Articles 625 and 549 of the Civil Code: rate, limitation period and whether the court will reduce each charge<\/h2>\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Charge<\/th>\nLegal basis and rate<\/th>\nLimitation period<\/th>\nCan the court reduce it<\/th>\nCan it be combined with the others<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
3 % per annum<\/td>\nCivil Code, Art. 625(2): 3 % of the overdue amount; a contract or a law may set a different rate<\/td>\n3 years (Civil Code, Art. 257); usually recovered for the last three years before the claim<\/td>\ndoes not reduce the statutory 3 %, may reduce a contractual rate above 3 % (Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, No. 903\/602\/24)<\/td>\nyes, with inflation losses and the penalty<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Inflation losses<\/td>\nCivil Code, Art. 625(2): depreciation of the debt according to the consumer price index for the entire period of delay<\/td>\n3 years<\/td>\nno (Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, No. 903\/602\/24)<\/td>\nyes<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Penalty<\/td>\nCivil Code, Art. 549(3), second paragraph (from 28 August 2025): double the NBU discount rate for each day; a contract may set a lower rate; for enterprises and sole proprietors a contractual penalty may not exceed double the rate (Law No. 543\/96-\u0412\u0420, Art. 3)<\/td>\n1 year (Civil Code, Art. 258(2)(1)), separately for each day<\/td>\nyes (Civil Code, Art. 551(3))<\/td>\nyes; but the court may, at the claimant’s request, order only one of them to keep accruing until the judgment is enforced: interest or the penalty, not both at once (Commercial Procedure Code, Art. 238(10); Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, No. 910\/14524\/22)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table><\/div>\n

The 3 % per annum and inflation losses are not penalty sanctions (paragraph 4.1 of Resolution No. 14 of the Plenum of the Higher Commercial Court of Ukraine of 17 December 2013); they form part of the monetary obligation. Inflation losses compensate for the depreciation of the debt and are not a payment for the use of funds, while 3 % per annum is a statutory payment for the use of money that should have reached the creditor (Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, 2 July 2025, No. 903\/602\/24, paras 115, 159). That is why they are claimed alongside the penalty. Debt recovery through the courts<\/a> starts with this calculation: the Commercial Procedure Code requires the statement of claim to set out the value of the claim and a substantiated calculation of each amount (Art. 162(3)(3)), and the value of a claim made up of several demands equals their total (Art. 163(1)(3)).<\/p>\n

A hypothetical example: UAH 500,000 of debt and 213 days of delay<\/h2>\n

Suppose a supply contract was signed in September 2025, after the Commercial Code had already been repealed. The buyer had to pay UAH 500,000 by 30 January 2026 (a Friday) and did not, and the contract provides for a penalty of double the NBU discount rate. We calculate up to and including 31 August 2026: as of 5 October, that is the latest month for which the State Statistics Service has published the consumer price index.<\/p>\n

  1. Days of delay:<\/strong> payment could be made until the end of 30 January, so the delay runs from 31 January to 31 August inclusive, i.e. 213 days (Civil Code, Art. 253, 255).<\/li>
  2. 3 % per annum:<\/strong> 500,000 \u00d7 3 \u00d7 213 \/ 365 \/ 100 = UAH 8,753.42<\/strong>. The Civil Cassation Court (CCC SC) calculated it the same way, with 365 days in the denominator (366 in a leap year), in case No. 751\/4086\/24.<\/li>
  3. Inflation losses:<\/strong> in January the delay lasts only one day, and a month in which the delay does not exceed 15 days is not taken into account (Joint Chamber of the Commercial Cassation Court (CmCC SC), No. 910\/13071\/19), so January drops out. The State Statistics Service indices for February\u2013August 2026 (101.0; 101.7; 101.4; 100.9; 99.9; 100.3; 100.1 %) are multiplied without skipping the June deflation, giving a cumulative index of 105.41 %: 500,000 \u00d7 1.05407605 \u2212 500,000 = UAH 27,038.03<\/strong>.<\/li>
  4. Penalty:<\/strong> double the discount rate was 30 % per annum up to and including 30 July 2026 and 31 % from 31 July 2026. For 181 days: 500,000 \u00d7 30 \u00d7 181 \/ 365 \/ 100 = UAH 74,383.56; for 32 days: 500,000 \u00d7 31 \u00d7 32 \/ 365 \/ 100 = UAH 13,589.04; in total UAH 87,972.60<\/strong>. The contract was signed after 28 August 2025, so there is no six-month cap.<\/li>
  5. Value of the claim and court fee:<\/strong> 500,000 + 8,753.42 + 27,038.03 + 87,972.60 = UAH 623,764.05<\/strong>, which is 24.75 % more than the debt. The fee for a property claim in a commercial court is 1.5 % of the value of the claim, i.e. UAH 9,356.46, and for filing electronically, with a coefficient of 0.8, UAH 7,485.17 (Law \u201cOn Court Fee\u201d, Art. 4; in 2026 the fee is not less than UAH 3,328 and not more than UAH 1,164,800).<\/li><\/ol>\n

    \"Breakdown<\/a><\/p>\n

    Attach this calculation to your letter of claim as well. Since 18 September 2026, when double the discount rate rose to 32 %, the penalty on UAH 500,000 has been adding UAH 438.36 every day. In pre-trial settlement of a commercial dispute<\/a>, a figure like this makes it easier to agree on payment in instalments or on waiving part of the penalty in exchange for prompt payment.<\/p>\n

    Penalty calculation after 28 August 2025: what the contract clause and the contract date change<\/h2>\n
    <\/svg>The contract provides for a penalty<\/span>

    Calculate it under the contract, but for enterprises, institutions, organisations and sole proprietors a penalty for late payment cannot exceed double the NBU discount rate in force during the period for which it is charged (Law No. 543\/96-\u0412\u0420, Art. 1, 3). The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court confirmed this cap back in 2019 (No. 904\/4156\/18), and the CmCC SC reiterated it after the Commercial Code was repealed (No. 910\/16298\/24).<\/p><\/div><\/div>

    <\/svg>The contract is silent<\/span>

    If the contract was signed on or after 28 August 2025, the creditor may claim the statutory penalty of double the discount rate (Civil Code, Art. 549(3), second paragraph).<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n

    If the delay began while the Commercial Code was still in force, the CmCC SC applies its provisions as worded at the time (Civil Code, Art. 5; ruling of 26 March 2026 in case No. 910\/14479\/23 (910\/5871\/24)). Under those rules, the penalty stops accruing six months after the day payment was due (Commercial Code, Art. 232(6)), unless the contract sets a different period: in that case the contract provided for a penalty \u201cuntil full settlement\u201d, and the court did not apply the cap. In July 2026, in a case about a contractual fine, the CmCC SC rejected the argument that the Commercial Code was no longer in force at the time of the judgment: if a right arose and began to be exercised under the old law, its exercise is completed under the same rules (No. 911\/437\/25).<\/p>\n

    We have not found a direct Supreme Court conclusion for a contract signed before 28 August 2025 where the delay began after that date: Article 5(3) of the Civil Code points to the new rules, while ruling No. 911\/437\/25 can be cited in favour of the old ones. So for an old contract we advise calculating both versions and, even before the letter of claim, discussing with a commercial dispute lawyer<\/a> which of them to claim.<\/p>\n

    <\/svg>

    The court may reduce the penalty, but not the statutory 3 % or inflation losses (Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, No. 903\/602\/24).<\/strong> Neustoika (a penalty or fine) is reduced if it significantly exceeds the amount of the losses and there are other circumstances of material importance (Civil Code, Art. 551(3)). There is no universal percentage: the Joint Chamber of the CmCC SC did not depart even from the conclusion in a case where the neustoika had been reduced by 99 % (No. 920\/437\/22). But it pointed out that the court may reduce neustoika, not release the debtor from it (No. 911\/2269\/22). The grounds for reduction are usually proved by the debtor, although one panel of the CmCC SC allowed the court to reduce neustoika on its own initiative as well (No. 910\/16193\/24). In July 2026 the CmCC SC upheld a decision that had halved a fine, in part because martial law had in practice prevented the defendant from operating at the airport (No. 911\/437\/25). So explain in the claim from the outset why the penalty should not be reduced: how long the delay lasted, whether the debtor paid after the letter of claim, what losses you suffered.<\/p><\/div><\/div>\n

    Double the NBU discount rate since 13 December 2024: from 27 to 32 % per annum<\/h3>\n

    The penalty is calculated at the rate in force in each period:<\/p>\n