1. Introduction. – 2. Methodology. – 3. The Concept of Tort Law and Two Conceivable Linking Factors. – 3.1. The Concept of Tort Law. – 3.2. Two Conceivable Linking Factors. – 4. Jurisdiction and Applicable Law: Two Distinct Questions. – 5. Damage vs. Indirect Consequences. – 6. Localisation of Financial Loss. – 7. Current Ukrainian Law. – 7.1. Jurisdiction. – 7.2. Applicable Law. – 8. The Approach of the Draft Civil Code. – 8.1. Jurisdiction. – 8.2. Applicable Law. – 9. Conclusions.
Background: As Ukraine advances toward EU membership, aligning its private international law with the EU acquis has become an urgent legislative task. Cross-border tort disputes in the EU are governed by two key instruments: Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (Brussels I Recast), which addresses international jurisdiction, and Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 (Rome II), which determines the applicable law. Their operation has been shaped by the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Ukraine is currently undergoing a comprehensive recodification of its private law, including the preparation of a new Civil Code containing a dedicated Book VIII on private international law (Draft Law No. 15150, April 2026). This reform presents a critical opportunity to align Ukrainian conflict-of-laws rules with European standards ahead of accession.
Method: The article employs doctrinal and comparative legal methodologies, addressing jurisdiction and applicable law as distinct yet interrelated dimensions of cross-border tort disputes. The analysis begins by examining the two principal connecting factors conceivable in tort conflicts, lex loci delicti commissi and lex loci damni, and the policy rationale underlying each. It then turns to the EU framework, analysing how jurisdiction under Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Recast Regulation and applicable law under Article 4(1) of the Rome II Regulation are structured and interpreted, with particular attention to the CJEU's distinction between direct damage and indirect consequences. Special consideration is given to the localisation of purely financial loss, illustrated by a series of leading CJEU judgments. Against this doctrinal background, the article evaluates the current Ukrainian Law “On International Private Law” in respect of both jurisdiction and applicable law, identifying areas of divergence from the European model. Finally, it examines the proposed solutions in Book VIII of the Draft Civil Code of Ukraine, assessing the extent to which the ongoing recodification incorporates European standards and formulating recommendations for further legislative alignment.
Results and Conclusions: The analysis reveals significant divergences between Ukrainian law and the EU model. The current Ukrainian legislation relies on lex loci delicti commissi for applicable law, a structural departure from Rome II's lex loci damni approach, and provides excessively broad, conceptually ambiguous jurisdictional grounds. While the Draft Civil Code marks meaningful progress by adopting lex loci damni as the principal connecting factor, critical gaps remain: it lacks a codified distinction between direct damage and indirect consequences, a cornerstone of CJEU case law omits a rule equivalent to Article 17 of Rome II on safety and conduct, and fails to introduce party autonomy for non-contractual obligations. The article recommends targeted legislative adjustments to close these gaps and achieve genuine alignment with the European conflict-of-laws framework.