Ukraine Reconstruction Funding: The UPF4 Legal Eligibility Test

Complex law. Clear action.

Reviewed by Oleksandr Sobovyi, Founder & CEO of CORVUS AI — editorial responsibility statement below.

€1.2 billion in Dutch support. €26.5 million in an active funding round. One mandatory deadline — and several legal barriers that applicants cannot afford to overlook.

CORVUS AI Legal & Regulatory Insights | 30 October 2026

From political commitment to project eligibility

On 28 October 2026, the Netherlands announced details of a €1.2 billion non-military support package for Ukraine covering 2027–2029. The package prioritises energy, water infrastructure, economic recovery and opportunities for Dutch businesses to participate in reconstruction.

Importantly, this is not €1.2 billion of newly available competitive grants. The announcement provides further details on funding already committed, including €878 million under the coalition agreement and an additional €327 million announced on Budget Day.

The government has identified €136 million for private-sector support initiatives, including the Ukraine Partnership Facility, and additional export credit insurance capacity.

For companies considering Ukraine–Netherlands reconstruction partnerships, the central issue is therefore not the headline funding figure.

It is whether a proposed project, consortium and financing structure can satisfy the conditions of a specific funding instrument.

One immediate opportunity is the fourth round of the Ukraine Partnership Facility (UPF4), administered by the Netherlands Enterprise Agency (RVO).

Its first mandatory submission deadline is approaching.

1. UPF4: What funding is actually available?

UPF4 has a total allocation of €26.5 million.

Eligible partnerships may seek grants ranging from €500,000 to €4 million, covering up to 90% of eligible project costs.

The remaining minimum 10% must be financed through the partnership's own resources or eligible third-party funding.

The programme targets four sectors:

• Healthcare: restoring or expanding health infrastructure and service capacity.

• Water: drinking-water infrastructure and water-treatment facilities.

• Sustainable energy: decentralised generation, energy efficiency, storage and renewable solutions.

• Agriculture and agrifood: storage, cooling, irrigation, agricultural logistics and food-security infrastructure.

Projects must address demonstrable local needs, generate measurable results and deliver broader economic or societal benefits in Ukraine.

UPF4 is not designed to finance ordinary commercial expansion. Projects that can be commercially financed, feasibility studies, standalone pilot projects and experimental technologies are excluded.

This distinction matters. A technically attractive investment proposal may still be legally ineligible if its primary benefit is confined to one commercial operator.

2. Consortium eligibility: The first legal barrier

UPF4 requires a partnership of two to six eligible organisations.

The consortium must include at least one business established in the Netherlands and at least one organisation established in Ukraine.

A Dutch business or eligible civil society organisation must act as the lead applicant.

However, geographical presence alone is insufficient.

Every formal partner must:

• Have been established before 15 August 2024.

• Demonstrate at least two years of relevant experience within the preceding ten years.

• Perform a necessary and substantive project role.

• Demonstrate sufficient organisational and financial capacity.

Only eligible private legal entities may form the formal partnership. Ukrainian public or semi-public institutions cannot participate as formal project partners, although they may be involved as beneficiaries or stakeholders.

The Dutch lead applicant faces additional requirements, including at least three full-time equivalent salaried employees and relevant experience working in Ukraine.

The practical consequence: a newly established consultancy, a sole trader or an otherwise capable technical company may be unable to enter the formal consortium directly.

This does not necessarily prevent the procurement of its professional services as an external contractor, subject to the programme's cost and implementation rules.

Legal eligibility must therefore be established before partners negotiate the commercial distribution of project responsibilities.

3. The lead partner carries more than administrative responsibility

Under the UPF4 framework, the lead applicant becomes the legal grant recipient and is accountable to the Dutch authorities for project implementation and compliance with subsidy obligations.

The partnership agreement is consequently not a formality.

It should allocate:

Financial responsibility. Who provides the co-financing? Who absorbs exchange-rate movements, cost overruns and expenditure that is later declared ineligible?

Operational responsibility. Which partner is responsible for procurement, delivery, permits, installation, reporting and maintenance?

Governance. How are decisions made? What happens when a partner fails to perform or the security situation prevents execution?

Ownership and transfer. Who receives equipment or infrastructure after completion? How are assets transferred to Ukrainian beneficiaries, and how is their long-term use secured?

Compliance and remedies. Who conducts due diligence, retains evidence and responds to potential breaches or recovery claims?

These questions are especially important when Dutch suppliers deliver equipment through Ukrainian implementing organisations to hospitals, utilities, agricultural cooperatives or other local beneficiaries.

A well-drafted consortium agreement must reflect the actual delivery model, not merely reproduce the programme template.

4. Sanctions, integrity and due diligence are substantive requirements

UPF4 requires applicants to address responsible business conduct under the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct.

The programme also requires a risk-based assessment of partners, suppliers and beneficiaries.

This includes attention to corruption, sanctions exposure, reputational concerns, security conditions and implementation risks in a conflict environment.

For cross-border projects, the legal review should consider:

Sanctions and counterparty screening. Identify relevant parties, beneficial ownership, control structures and potentially prohibited dealings under applicable EU sanctions.

Trade and export controls. Determine whether the proposed equipment, technology or software is subject to export licensing or other restrictions. Dual-use controls may be relevant depending on the product and transaction.

Ukrainian regulatory compliance. Examine applicable import procedures, sectoral authorisations, land or infrastructure rights and regulatory conditions for operation.

Procurement and contracting. Establish the correct procurement route where public authorities, public assets or public-sector beneficiaries are involved.

Anti-corruption and integrity. Document due diligence, conflicts-of-interest controls, payment safeguards and appropriate contractual remedies.

The precise obligations will differ according to the project structure and applicable law.

The essential point is that due diligence cannot be reduced to checking company registration documents. It must address the complete transaction chain and the destination and use of project assets.

5. Financial eligibility: 90% funding does not mean 90% risk protection

The UPF4 grant may cover up to 90% of eligible expenditure. That does not mean the authorities will reimburse 90% of every cost incurred.

Several categories are excluded, including application preparation costs, recoverable VAT, financing costs, losses caused by inflation or exchange-rate movements, certain licensing and product-development costs, and other expenditure outside the programme rules.

Costs generally need to arise after the funding application has been submitted.

External services may qualify as third-party costs when they are necessary for implementation, properly invoiced and compliant with the programme requirements.

Project management and coordination costs are also subject to a specific ceiling.

Applicants must demonstrate credible financing arrangements, including their ability to provide the minimum contribution and maintain adequate liquidity throughout implementation.

A weak financial structure can defeat an otherwise eligible reconstruction project.

The grant agreement, consortium arrangements, subcontracting model and budget should therefore be reviewed together.

6. Scoring and timing: An eligible application can still fail

UPF4 applications are assessed using substantive scoring criteria.

A project must achieve at least 65 points out of 100, including at least 20 points in each of three principal categories:

1. Alignment with local needs and priorities.

2. Results and impact.

3. Action plan and efficiency.

Bonus points may be available for projects benefiting specified Ukrainian regions, previous successful cooperation and additional eligible co-financing.

However, passing the minimum score does not guarantee an award.

Funding is allocated by reference to the order in which complete applications are received, subject to the applicable assessment rules and remaining budget.

This creates a second level of risk: even a strong project can lose its funding opportunity through incomplete documentation or delayed submission.

The application timetable

23 October – 3 December 2026: Mandatory preliminary quick scan.

3 December 2026, 17:00 CET: Final deadline for submitting the quick scan.

4 March – 8 April 2027: Full grant application period.

8 April 2027, 17:00 CEST: Full application deadline.

The quick scan results in non-binding advice from RVO. Receiving favourable advice does not amount to grant approval.

Nevertheless, completing this stage and obtaining the reference number is a prerequisite for the formal application.

7. What businesses should do before 3 December

For organisations considering a UPF4 application, we recommend five immediate actions.

First — conduct an eligibility review. Verify each proposed partner's legal form, establishment date, experience, financial position and role.

Second — document the Ukrainian need. Identify beneficiaries, the relevant local authority or sectoral stakeholder, and credible evidence of the reconstruction priority.

Third — test the project against funding exclusions. Confirm that the proposed activity is not simply a commercially financeable investment, feasibility study or experimental pilot.

Fourth — establish the financial and contractual model. Allocate co-financing, responsibilities, ownership, delivery risks and compliance obligations before finalising the consortium.

Fifth — prepare a credible quick scan. Use the preliminary submission to demonstrate a concrete, implementable project rather than an undeveloped investment concept.

Early legal structuring will not guarantee funding. It can, however, prevent avoidable exclusion and reduce the risk of contractual difficulties during implementation.

Conclusion: Reconstruction funding is becoming an execution challenge

The Netherlands' €1.2 billion commitment creates important opportunities for Dutch and Ukrainian businesses.

But political commitments, available grant instruments and legally enforceable funding rights are three different things.

The decisive question for an applicant is not simply whether reconstruction funding exists.

It is whether the consortium can demonstrate eligibility, lawful implementation, financial credibility and a defensible governance structure before committing resources.

For Ukraine–Netherlands projects, this requires understanding both the Dutch funding framework and the Ukrainian legal and institutional environment in which the project must operate.

That is where legal preparation becomes a strategic advantage.

How CORVUS AI can assist

CORVUS AI advises on EU–Ukraine cross-border legal and regulatory matters, with a focus on funding eligibility, legal due diligence, consortium governance, contracts and regulatory risk.

For prospective reconstruction projects, our work can include an initial eligibility assessment, Ukrainian counterparty review, regulatory risk mapping and contractual structuring.

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.

Explore CORVUS AI's EU–Ukraine legal advisory services

Complex law. Clear action.

Official sources

1. Government of the Netherlands — New support package announced on 28 October 2026

2. Netherlands Enterprise Agency — Ukraine Partnership Facility UPF4

3. Official Dutch Government Gazette — Staatscourant 2026, No. 35300

4. RVO — UPF application instructions

5. RVO — UPF Questions and Answers

Legal editorial note: This article reflects the published programme conditions as reviewed on 30 October 2026. Eligibility and cost treatment depend on the facts of each project. The official Dutch subsidy decision and applicable rules prevail over summaries and unofficial translations. CORVUS AI provides Ukrainian-law advice and cross-border regulatory analysis; regulated legal services in other jurisdictions may require locally qualified counsel.