Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Business

AIIF Agreements Classified — EBA Demands Disclosure of Partnership Terms Under Which 22 Projects Already Selected

The DPP Agency classified commercial partnership agreements within the U.S.-Ukrainian investment fund with a "for official use only" marking — before businesses learned on what terms these agreements were being concluded.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

May 18, 2026 · 2 min read

AIIF Agreements Classified — EBA Demands Disclosure of Partnership Terms Under Which 22 Projects Already Selected
Фото: Юлія Свириденко / Telegram

The U.S.-Ukraine Investment Fund for Reconstruction (AUIF) has already selected 22 projects from 59 submitted applications and is preparing to sign the first three investment agreements this year. However, the base documents that define the conditions for business participation in this process are closed from public access.

What exactly is closed

The Public-Private Partnership Support Agency (PPP Agency) has classified commercial partnership agreements within the AUIF as service information — marked with the "DSK" classification. These very agreements determine the conditions under which private business gains access to fund projects: in the areas of critical minerals, energy, transport, and ICT.

The European Business Association (EBA) has sent letters to Minister of Economy Oleksiy Sobolev and PPP Agency Director Niko Gachechiladze demanding that copies of these documents be made public.

"These agreements determine future conditions for doing business in Ukraine"

— the EBA's position in its appeal to the Ministry of Economy and the PPP Agency

The association's legal argument

The EBA appeals to the Law on Access to Public Information: it obliges providing the open part of documents even when certain elements have restrictions. The "DSK" classification can only be applied on clearly defined legal grounds — and the association questions whether such grounds exist in this case.

In other words: even if part of an agreement is genuinely sensitive, this does not justify hiding the entire document.

Context: the fund is already operating, conditions are unknown

The AUIF was created on the basis of an intergovernmental agreement between Ukraine and the United States, signed on April 30, 2025 in Washington. The agreement was ratified by the Verkhovna Rada on May 8, it entered into force on May 23. In September 2025, the fund began full operations.

The fund has already completed its first selection cycle: from 59 submitted applications — 37 from Ukrainian companies — 22 projects have been recommended for further processing. Priority sectors:

  • critical minerals (upstream and midstream)
  • energy: generation, transmission, hydrocarbon extraction
  • transport and logistics
  • ICT and advanced technologies

The goal for 2026, according to Sobolev, is to sign the first three investment agreements. In its early years, the fund plans to prioritize investments in equity and quasi-capital instruments.

Where the gap lies

A procedural issue here becomes systemic: if commercial partnership agreements remain closed, any investor submitting an application to the AUIF will have no idea of the standard participation conditions — until the moment they sign something concrete. This is not merely a lack of transparency; it is an information asymmetry favoring those who already have access to closed negotiations.

Neither the Ministry of Economy nor the PPP Agency has publicly responded to the EBA's appeal.

If the ministry provides a response citing specific legal norms that justify the DSK classification, it will test whether the closure of documents is a legal decision or an administrative reflex. Without this response, the question of who and on what conditions will gain access to Ukrainian mineral resources through the AUIF remains open precisely for those it is most addressed to.

Related

Latest

Business

EU Against Google: Why the Latest Fine Could Change More Than Previous Ones

# European Regulators Target Google Again — This Time Over Digital Markets Act Violations. What's Behind the Accusations and Why It Matters Beyond the Corporation European regulators have renewed their scrutiny of Google, this time focusing on alleged violations of the Digital Markets Act. The charges underscore Brussels' increasingly aggressive stance on big tech monopolies and what officials say are anticompetitive practices. The accusations center on how Google leverages its dominance across multiple digital services — from search to advertising to mobile platforms — to disadvantage competitors. Regulators claim the company is using its market power in ways that stifle innovation and limit consumer choice. The case carries significance far beyond Google itself. It signals how the EU is attempting to enforce its landmark Digital Markets Act, legislation designed to curb the gatekeeping power of tech giants. A potential penalty could set precedent for how other large technology companies face similar scrutiny. For consumers and smaller tech firms, the outcome could reshape the digital landscape by creating more room for competition. For Google, fines and operational restrictions could fundamentally alter its business model in Europe, the world's most stringent regulatory market. The case also reflects a broader geopolitical divide, with the EU pursuing a regulatory approach that contrasts sharply with the lighter-touch oversight favored in the United States.

May 26, 2026