Ukraine’s Interagency FDI Commission: Early Powers in a Yet-to-Be-Defined FDI Screening Regime

Igor Svechkar (Partner, Asters), Sergiy Glushchenko (Counsel, Asters), and Anastasiia Panchak (Senior Associate, Asters; CELIS Country Reporter for Ukraine)

Introduction

On 28 January 2026, the Ukrainian Government (‘the Government’) adopted Resolution No. 97 (‘the Resolution’), establishing an Interagency Foreign Direct Investment Screening Commission (‘the Commission’). This step marks a further move toward the development of a comprehensive foreign direct investment (FDI) screening regime in Ukraine. That said, the timing of this development was unexpected even for close observers of Ukraine’s FDI policy.

In September 2025, the Ukrainian Parliament (‘the Parliament’) registered a bill No. 14062, "On the Screening of Foreign Direct Investments" (see further details here). The bill likewise envisages the establishment of an FDI screening commission, albeit with a somewhat different institutional design. It remains under parliamentary review and, while formally designated as a priority, the timing of its adoption remains uncertain. Against this background, the creation of the Commission in advance of a dedicated legislative framework raises questions.

Why Now?

The Government has not yet publicly articulated the rationale behind this accelerated institutional step. Several considerations may, nonetheless, explain the decision. FDI screening is a highly sensitive policy area, requiring careful calibration to protect national security interests, on the one hand, while not unduly discouraging foreign investment, on the other. Given the number of stakeholders involved, early institutional preparation may facilitate a smoother implementation of the future statutory FDI screening regime once adopted.

The decision also appears to be driven by an anticipated surge in foreign investment linked to post-war reconstruction and –perhaps more importantly– by the already visibly growing interest of foreign investors in Ukrainian military-technology and dual-use companies. These developments may already necessitate heightened governmental scrutiny, leaving limited scope to await the completion of the usually lengthy legislative process.

Commission's Mandate

At first glance, the establishment of the Commission as such may not raise immediate concerns, as it is formally designed to serve as a temporary advisory and consultative body of the Government. At the same time, the Commission's mandate, powers, and institutional composition suggest that it may be intended to perform operational functions rather than merely serve as a temporary advisory forum.

For example, in addition to policy-oriented tasks such as the development of proposals for the future FDI screening framework and engaging in international cooperation, the Commission is expressly authorised to analyse and assess the impact of both completed and planned FDIs on national security (Clause 4(1)). Under the Resolution, it may review foreign investments in undertakings of strategic importance. Importantly, the Commission is also empowered to obtain information directly from foreign investors in order to carry out its assessments.

Institutional Composition

The institutional weight of the Commission is further underscored by its broad composition. It brings together senior representatives from the Ministries of Economy, Finance, Internal Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Justice, Defence, Communities and Territories Development, and Digital Transformation, alongside core national security and intelligence bodies, including the National Security and Defence Council, the Security Service of Ukraine, and the Foreign Intelligence Service. Key financial and economic regulators are also represented, notably, the National Bank of Ukraine, the Antimonopoly Committee, the National Securities and Stock Market Commission, and the State Financial Monitoring Service.

The institutional structure of the Commission mimics the FDI screening bodies in some European countries (e.g. Romania), where the architecture reflects a more institutionalised "economic security council", with representation from government ministries, regulatory bodies, as well as security and intelligence actors. This may suggest that Ukraine is seeking to align its approach to FDI regulation with that of recently established regimes in the EU.

That said, the breadth of representation of the Ukrainian Commission suggests that the Government anticipates a broad set of foreign investments potentially capable of triggering national security concerns. Yet, in the absence of formal FDI screening legislation, the Commission does not itself possess explicit powers to approve, condition, or block FDI transactions. However, its role should not be underestimated. The institutional architecture established by the Resolution may operate as an intermediary, with the Commission’s assessments informing decisions taken under other legal instruments.

In this context, Ukraine’s sanctions regime, previously used as a de facto foreign investment control tool, may again come into play. The Motor Sich case, which dates back to 2021, offers a vivid precedent. Faced with concerns over the foreign acquisition of a strategic aerospace manufacturer, Ukrainian authorities relied on sanctions and national security measures to block the takeover by the Chinese investors. The Commission’s authority to submit proposals and recommendations to the Government – which may, in turn, initiate sanctions through the National Security and Defence Council – suggests that a similar pathway could be utilised in future cases.

Key Takeaways for Foreign Investors

The establishment of the Interagency FDI Screening Commission marks a significant step toward the eventual introduction of a comprehensive FDI screening regime in Ukraine. By creating an operational body ahead of the adoption of the relevant legislation, the Government appears to be prioritising immediate institutional capacity over formal legislative sequencing.

While this approach may enhance preparedness and interagency coordination in the short term, particularly with respect to investments into sensitive sectors, it also raises questions regarding legal certainty and transparency for foreign investors. Much will depend on how the Commission exercises its mandate in practice and how its activities are ultimately aligned with the forthcoming statutory FDI screening framework once adopted.