Ukraine Reconstruction, EU Law, Netherlands–Ukraine
Netherlands–Ukraine Recovery: 5 Legal Checks
Five legal checks for Dutch companies entering Ukraine’s recovery market: EU procurement, sanctions, contracts, supply-chain risks and compliance.
Netherlands’ €1.2 Billion Ukraine Recovery Package: Five Legal Checks Before Entering the Market
Complex law. Clear action.
Reviewed by Oleksandr Sobovyi, Founder & CEO of CORVUS AI — editorial responsibility statement below.
The Netherlands has announced €1.2 billion in non-military support for Ukraine. For Dutch companies, this creates opportunities in energy, water infrastructure, agriculture and industrial recovery. But the package is not a €1.2 billion procurement market reserved for Dutch suppliers. Funding will move through different institutions and instruments, each with its own eligibility rules, procurement procedures and contractual risks.
For companies considering reconstruction projects, the first decision is not which opportunity to pursue. It is which legal and financial framework applies.
1. What the Netherlands actually announced
On 28 October 2026, Dutch Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation Sjoerd Sjoerdsma announced a €1.2 billion non-military support package during a visit to Kyiv alongside Coen van Oostrom, Chair of VNO-NCW.
According to the Dutch Government's official announcement, the package covers the coming three years, with particular emphasis on energy infrastructure, water supply, reconstruction and business cooperation.
The announcement provides further detail on previously committed support: €878 million under the coalition agreement and an additional €327 million announced on Budget Day.
Several measures are particularly relevant to businesses:
€40 million in accelerated support for the Ukraine Energy Support Fund in 2026.
€55 million for in-kind energy assistance, enabling equipment from Dutch market participants to reach Ukrainian partners through the Netherlands Enterprise Agency (RVO).
€136 million for business-support measures, including the Ukraine Partnership Facility and other initiatives.
€19.5 million in additional export credit insurance capacity, on top of the existing €60 million Ukraine facility.
€10 million associated with a letter of intent concerning the Industrial Ramstein initiative, supporting the recovery and modernisation of Ukrainian production capacity.
These figures describe different types of financial commitments. They should not be added together and presented as a single pool of procurement contracts available to Dutch companies.
The €136 million allocation is not exclusively a UPF budget. Similarly, export credit insurance capacity is not equivalent to grant expenditure or the face value of insured export contracts.
A letter of intent does not, by itself, establish a procurement award or an enforceable purchase commitment.
The Government also indicated that a substantial part of Dutch support would be channelled through the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), the World Bank and the European Investment Bank (EIB).
This distinction determines how companies can enter the market.
2. Four funding channels, four different legal frameworks
A. International financial institutions: no automatic Dutch preference
Projects financed through the EBRD, World Bank or EIB are governed by the applicable financing agreements and procurement frameworks.
Dutch participation in the financing does not, by itself, give Dutch suppliers preferential treatment in the evaluation of tenders.
Companies must assess the rules governing the specific project, including:
bidder and goods eligibility;
competitive procurement procedures;
conflicts of interest and beneficial ownership;
integrity and anti-corruption requirements;
applicable exclusion and sanctions mechanisms;
audit, investigation and record-retention obligations.
An additional risk arises from the integrity frameworks of international financial institutions.
The EBRD and World Bank Group participate in a cross-debarment framework under which certain qualifying sanctions decisions may be recognised by other participating multilateral development banks.
This does not mean that every procurement exclusion automatically results in worldwide debarment. The relevant decision, grounds, duration and conditions for mutual recognition must be examined.
Nevertheless, serious integrity violations can affect a supplier's eligibility across multiple development-finance markets.
For a company building a long-term reconstruction business, this risk may extend far beyond the original contract.
B. RVO in-kind energy support: identify the actual contracting authority
The Dutch Government has allocated €55 million to facilitate deliveries of energy equipment from Dutch market participants to Ukrainian partners through RVO.
This is a potentially important opportunity for manufacturers and distributors of energy equipment.
However, the public announcement does not establish a universal supplier-selection procedure or identify the contracting party for every transaction.
Companies should therefore avoid assuming that RVO will necessarily act as the purchaser under a standard Dutch supply contract.
Before committing resources, suppliers should establish:
Which organisation will select and contract with the supplier?
Which procurement or purchasing rules apply?
Who will own the equipment during shipment and after delivery?
Who is responsible for transport, insurance, customs clearance and acceptance?
Who will obtain any necessary export authorisations?
These questions matter particularly where equipment includes specialised control systems, telecommunications technology or other potentially controlled components.
Regulation (EU) 2021/821 establishes the EU framework for exports of dual-use items. Classification depends on the technical characteristics of the goods and applicable controls, not simply on whether they are used in the energy sector.
Ukraine is not a destination covered by Union General Export Authorisation EU001. This does not mean every energy-equipment shipment requires an individual dual-use licence.
The appropriate classification and licensing assessment must be completed before the supplier makes binding delivery commitments.
EU Dual-Use Regulation 2021/821
C. Ukraine Partnership Facility (UPF4): a grant with strict eligibility requirements
UPF4 is one of the clearest current opportunities for structured Dutch–Ukrainian reconstruction partnerships.
However, it is a subsidy programme, not a conventional public procurement contract.
The legal basis is the Dutch Ministerial Decision published in Staatscourant 2026, 35300.
The programme has a budget of €26.5 million, with grants ranging from €500,000 to €4 million.
It covers up to 90% of eligible project costs. The partnership must finance at least 10% through eligible own resources or third-party contributions.
The programme focuses on four sectors:
Healthcare
Water
Sustainable energy
Agriculture and agrifood
Projects must respond to local needs, produce measurable benefits and contribute to Ukraine's sustainable recovery.
Projects that can be financed commercially, feasibility studies, pilot projects and projects based on experimental technologies are excluded.
Eligibility requirements that companies should check first
UPF4 requires a partnership of 2 to 6 organisations, including at least one Dutch-registered business and one Ukrainian-registered organisation.
A Dutch business or civil society organisation must act as lead applicant.
The detailed conditions are more restrictive than this basic structure suggests.
Date of establishment. Each partner must have been established before 15 August 2024.
Experience. Each partner must demonstrate at least two years of relevant sector experience gained within the preceding ten years.
Lead applicant capacity. The lead applicant must have at least three full-time equivalent employees in salaried employment, subject to the rules applicable to groups or tax groups.
Ukraine experience. The lead applicant must demonstrate at least two years of experience working in Ukraine during the previous ten years. Relevant experience acquired by staff at other organisations may count under the programme rules.
Financial capacity. Partners must demonstrate the ability to meet their financial commitments and perform their allocated activities.
Assessment threshold. Applications must obtain at least 65 out of 100 points and meet minimum scores for the three principal assessment criteria.
These requirements should be verified before preparing a full application.
A strong project concept cannot compensate for an ineligible partnership.
Ukrainian municipal utilities: beneficiary or partner?
One particularly important restriction concerns Ukrainian government and semi-government institutions.
Under the UPF4 rules, such institutions cannot receive a grant as lead applicant or consortium partner.
However, they may be involved as beneficiaries or consulted during project implementation. Certain costs may also be treated as third-party costs under the programme's specific conditions.
This distinction is particularly relevant to water infrastructure, district heating and public healthcare.
A municipal water utility, for example, may be central to the operational success of a reconstruction project without necessarily being eligible to join the grant partnership.
Its legal status must be assessed individually. Municipal ownership alone should not replace a proper analysis of the programme's definitions and the entity's legal structure.
The correct partnership arrangement should be discussed with RVO during the mandatory quick scan.
The cooperation agreement is a legal instrument
UPF4 requires a signed cooperation agreement between the partners, together with separate partner documentation.
This agreement should not be treated as a non-binding memorandum of understanding.
It should address, among other matters:
allocation of activities and project expenditure;
financial contributions and cash-flow obligations;
reporting and supporting evidence;
responsibility for ineligible expenditure and subsidy recovery;
intellectual property and ownership of project assets;
sanctions, integrity and responsible business conduct;
withdrawal, replacement of partners and dispute resolution.
The programme also requires attention to Responsible Business Conduct, including OECD-related due diligence and safeguards against sexual exploitation, abuse and harassment.
A properly structured agreement is therefore central to both project delivery and financial risk allocation.
UPF4 deadlines
Mandatory quick scan: 23 October–3 December 2026, closing at 17:00 CET.
Grant application period: 4 March–8 April 2027, closing at 17:00 CEST.
The quick scan is mandatory and results in non-binding advice.
Complete applications are processed in order of receipt, subject to the programme rules.
Companies should not wait until March to establish eligibility, agree consortium responsibilities or prepare the financial model.
Official UPF4 programme information
Application procedure and required documents
D. Export credit insurance: manage risk before signing the contract
The Dutch Government has announced an additional €19.5 million for export credit insurance supporting transactions with Ukraine.
This supplements the existing €60 million facility administered through the Dutch state export credit insurance framework.
For exporters, this instrument can help manage eligible payment and political risks associated with transactions in Ukraine.
However, insurance is not a substitute for a legally sound underlying contract.
The scope of coverage, exclusions, buyer assessment, payment arrangements and compliance obligations depend on the applicable policy and transaction.
In particular, companies should establish whether the proposed contract satisfies:
applicable sanctions and export-control requirements;
procurement and contracting rules;
the insurer's requirements concerning the buyer and payment structure;
conditions relating to claims, notification and recovery.
Not every contractual defect automatically invalidates insurance coverage. The consequences depend on the policy terms, applicable law and the nature of the defect.
The practical recommendation is straightforward: engage Atradius Dutch State Business before finalising the commercial structure, rather than treating insurance as a remedy after the contract has been signed.
Government documentation on export credit insurance
3. Five legal checks before entering a Ukraine recovery project
Check 1 — Funding eligibility and project structure
Identify whether the project is financed through a multilateral development bank, a Dutch purchasing arrangement, a grant or an insured commercial transaction.
These instruments serve different purposes and create different legal relationships.
For grants, check the eligibility of every partner, not only the lead applicant.
For procurement contracts, establish the applicable purchasing framework and the contracting entity.
For insured exports, confirm that the transaction is capable of meeting the insurer's conditions.
The funding source determines the first layer of legal analysis.
Check 2 — Procurement law and contracting authority
A Ukrainian public-sector beneficiary does not automatically mean that every purchase is governed by the ordinary Ukrainian public procurement procedure.
The applicable regime depends on the purchasing entity, funding arrangements, transaction structure and any relevant special rules.
Ukraine's public procurement framework is also undergoing legislative change.
The existing Law No. 922-VIII remains relevant during the transition to the framework established by Law No. 4888-IX, with the replacement scheduled for 24 March 2027.
Wartime procurement arrangements, including Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 1178 where applicable, must be considered separately.
For contracts involving public or municipal entities, companies should verify the legal basis for the procurement before signing.
A financing commitment or grant award does not cure an underlying breach of mandatory procurement law.
Ukraine's Public Procurement Law No. 922-VIII
Check 3 — Sanctions, ownership and integrity
Ukraine recovery projects can involve complex supply chains, local intermediaries and counterparties with changing ownership structures.
Dutch companies must consider applicable EU restrictive measures, including Regulation (EU) No. 269/2014 and Regulation (EU) No. 833/2014, alongside relevant Dutch implementing and enforcement rules.
Ukrainian sanctions may also affect the legality or feasibility of transactions involving local counterparties.
A proportionate due diligence process should address:
direct and indirect beneficial ownership;
designated persons and entities;
ownership or control by sanctioned persons;
relevant intermediaries and subcontractors;
the origin and destination of payments;
potential conflicts of interest and improper influence.
The analysis should be documented and updated when material circumstances change.
Where multilateral development banks finance the project, their separate integrity and prohibited-practices requirements must also be considered.
Check 4 — Product origin and export-control classification
Supplier nationality and product origin are different legal concepts.
This distinction is particularly important where equipment is manufactured outside the Netherlands and supplied by a Dutch distributor.
Ukraine increased the required localisation level to 30% for specified categories of goods in relevant public procurement procedures from 1 January 2026.
The applicability of localisation requirements must be assessed by reference to the product category, procurement value, applicable international commitments and any relevant exemption.
A Dutch supplier cannot establish preferential treatment merely by showing that it is incorporated in the Netherlands.
Conversely, a product manufactured outside the EU is not automatically subject to Ukrainian localisation requirements in every transaction.
Where EU Ukraine Facility resources are involved, the eligibility rules under Regulation (EU) 2024/792 must be examined separately, including the rules on eligible entities and the origin of supplies.
Those rules should not be presumed to apply automatically to every project financed by the EBRD, World Bank or EIB.
Export controls create an additional and independent assessment.
Energy-control systems, certain telecommunications technologies, specialised drones and demining equipment may require classification under EU dual-use or military export-control rules.
The result depends on technical specifications, end use, end user and the applicable control provisions.
For Dutch exporters, this assessment should take place before pricing, delivery schedules and contractual commitments are finalised.
EU Ukraine Facility Regulation 2024/792
EU Dual-Use Regulation 2021/821
Check 5 — Contractual allocation of financial and compliance risks
A commercially attractive reconstruction project can become legally difficult if responsibilities are not allocated clearly.
The contract or consortium agreement should identify who is responsible for:
permits, licences and export authorisations;
customs, logistics and delivery;
acceptance and transfer of ownership;
compliance with sanctions and integrity requirements;
reporting to the funder or insurer;
defective equipment, delays and force majeure;
suspension, termination and recovery of funds;
dispute resolution and enforcement.
Special attention is needed where a Dutch manufacturer relies on a Ukrainian partner to manage relations with public authorities.
A local partner's conduct can create legal, contractual and reputational exposure for the wider project.
Dutch and Ukrainian anti-bribery rules, together with the integrity frameworks of international financial institutions, may be relevant to the same underlying conduct, subject to the applicable jurisdictional requirements.
The objective is not to transfer every risk to another party.
It is to establish responsibilities that are legally enforceable, operationally realistic and consistent with the funding instrument.
4. What Dutch companies should do now
The most immediate deadline is the UPF4 quick scan on 3 December 2026.
Companies considering this instrument should first verify the establishment dates, staffing, experience and legal status of all proposed partners.
For energy-equipment suppliers, the priority is to identify the procurement mechanism for the €55 million in-kind support and prepare technical and export-control documentation.
For companies pursuing multilateral development bank projects, the priority is to identify actual procurement notices and the rules applicable to the relevant financing operation.
For exporters seeking credit insurance, the priority is early engagement with the insurer and legal review of the proposed buyer and contract structure.
A targeted legal assessment is particularly important where the project involves Ukrainian public or municipal entities, complex ownership structures, controlled equipment, local intermediaries or multiple funding sources.
5. The strategic conclusion
The Netherlands' €1.2 billion support package is an important political and financial commitment to Ukraine's recovery.
It also creates potential opportunities for Dutch businesses.
But political support, available financing and an accessible commercial contract are three different things.
The central legal question is not how much funding has been announced. It is whether a particular company, partnership and transaction qualify under the rules governing that funding.
Companies that establish eligibility, procurement requirements and contractual responsibilities early will be better positioned to pursue opportunities without exposing themselves to avoidable legal and financial risks.
For Dutch–Ukrainian reconstruction partnerships, effective market entry begins with a defensible legal structure.
About the author
Oleksandr Sobovyi
Founder & CEO, CORVUS AI
Oleksandr has more than 20 years of experience in legal and public-sector work, including senior legal positions within Ukraine's Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Agrarian Policy.
CORVUS AI is a Netherlands-based legal and regulatory advisory firm focusing on EU regulation, defence and dual-use activities, procurement, governance and EU–Ukraine cross-border projects.
Disclaimer
This article has been prepared by CORVUS AI for general informational and educational purposes only. It is intended to make complex legal and regulatory developments easier to understand.
It does not constitute legal advice and does not create a professional adviser–client relationship. The information should not be relied upon as a substitute for advice based on the specific facts, circumstances and applicable law relevant to your organisation or project.
The article reflects our understanding of the law and regulatory framework as of the date of publication. Legislation, case law, regulatory guidance and administrative practice may subsequently change. While reasonable care has been taken in preparing this article, CORVUS AI does not warrant that the information is complete or remains current after the date of publication. We do not undertake to update this content.
To the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, CORVUS AI excludes liability for loss arising from reliance on this article. Nothing in this article constitutes an offer or solicitation to provide regulated legal services in any jurisdiction where doing so would be unlawful.
AI-assisted preparation: This article was prepared with the assistance of AI tools. Its legal analysis, conclusions and final text were subject to human review and editorial control and were reviewed and approved prior to publication by Oleksandr Sobovyi, Founder & CEO of CORVUS AI. CORVUS AI retains editorial responsibility for the published content.
For advice tailored to your organisation, project or specific circumstances, please contact CORVUS AI.
Complex law. Clear action.
www.corvusai.eu
contact@corvusai.eu
This article reflects CORVUS AI's analysis as of 29 October 2026. It is intended for general information and does not constitute legal advice concerning any particular project, procurement or contractual relationship.
Editorial responsibility
This article was prepared with the assistance of artificial intelligence tools and subjected to human legal and editorial review.
CORVUS AI assumes editorial responsibility for the publication. The responsible editor is Oleksandr Sobovyi, Founder & CEO.
This editorial process takes account of the transparency framework in Article 50(4) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, including the provisions concerning human review, editorial control and editorial responsibility.
