Yes, partial and interim awards that finally settle a matter in dispute between the parties may be recognized and enforced in Ukraine (see, for instance, Supreme Court judgement of 24 November 2010 in the case Rosukrenergo v. Naftogaz Ukraine).
 See, for the reasoning of the case, https://sccinstitute.com/media/62034/rosukrenergo_v_naftogaz_ukraine_2010_supreme_court_of_ukraine_ua.pdf.
Pursuant to Article 478 of the CPC, which replicates the provisions of Article 5 of the New York Convention, the competent court shall refuse recognition and enforcement of an International Commercial Arbitral Award only if:
a) the party to the arbitration agreement was under some incapacity; or said agreement is null and void under the law to which the parties have subjected it or, failing any indication thereon, under the law of the country where the award was made; or
b) the party against which the award is invoked was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or the arbitration proceedings or was otherwise unable to present its case; or
c) the award was made regarding a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the arbitration agreement, or contains resolutions on matters beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement, however, if the resolutions on issues covered by the arbitration agreement can be separated from those not covered by such agreement, only that part of the award which contains resolutions on issues covered by such agreement may be recognized and enforced; or
d) the composition of the international commercial arbitral tribunal or the arbitration procedure did not comply with the agreement of the parties or, in the absence of such agreement, did not comply with the law of the country in which the place of arbitration was;
e) the award has not yet become binding on the parties or has been revoked or suspended by a court of the state in which, or under the law of which, that award was made.
Additionally, International Commercial Arbitral Awards may be refused recognition and enforcement if:
a) the dispute, given its subject matter, may not be referred to international commercial arbitration for resolution according to Ukrainian law; or
b) the recognition or enforcement of the award is contrary to the public policy of Ukraine.
The grounds for the non-enforcement of Domestic Awards are distinct. Pursuant to Article 486 of the CPC, the court shall refuse enforcement of a Domestic Award if:
a) the arbitral award has been revoked by a competent court;
b) the case subject to the arbitral award is not within the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal according to law;
c) the period for applying for a writ of enforcement has not been complied with, and the grounds for the omission have not been accepted as reasonable;
d) the arbitral award has been issued in a dispute not provided for in the arbitration agreement, or the award resolved issues that exceed the scope of the arbitration agreement;
e) the arbitration agreement has been declared null and void;
f) the composition of the arbitral tribunal that issued the award did not meet legal requirements;
g) the arbitral award grants a form of relief to the parties which is not provided for under Ukrainian law;
h) the permanent arbitral tribunal has failed to submit the relevant case file to the competent court although requested to do so;
i) the arbitral tribunal has decided on rights and obligations of persons or entities who did not participate in the arbitration proceedings.
There is no statutory definition of “public policy” in Ukrainian legislation. However, the Supreme Court tried to define this concept several times.
For the first time, the definition was specified in the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of Ukraine No. 12 of 24 December 1999 “On the practice of court consideration of applications for the recognition and enforcement of the foreign judgments and arbitral awards and on cancellation of the decisions made by international commercial arbitral tribunals in the territory of Ukraine” (hereinafter “Resolution”). Part 8, clause 12 of the Resolution declared that in the context of the enforcement proceedings, “public policy” is composed of the legal order of a state and the fundamental principles that form the basis of said legal order (particularly with regard to the state’s independence, integrity, self-sufficiency and inviolability, fundamental constitutional rights, freedoms, guarantees, etc.). There are no specific criteria defining the limitations of public policy though.
However, later in November 2021, the Supreme Court summarized its approach to public policy in the Odesa Port Plant v. Ostchem case as follows: “[the] public policy reservation is a mechanism which secures priority of state interests over private interests, and thereby protects public policy of the state from any negative impacts; this reservation does not allow enforcement in the territory of the state of such an arbitral award, as a result of enforcement of which actions will be taken, that are prohibited by law and that cause harm to sovereignty or security of the state, are incompatible with the principles of economic, political and legal systems in the state”. In this case, for the first time, the Supreme Court concluded that enforcement of an arbitral award against a Ukrainian company of “strategic importance to the economy and security of the State” operating high-risk facilities violates Ukrainian public policy.
In this vein, it is also important to note that in 2018, the Law on Private International Law was supplemented by part 2 of Article 81, which prohibits recognition and enforcement of foreign judgements and arbitral awards against companies from the Ukrainian military and defense sector, as any such enforcement would favor the Russian Federation as the aggressor state in Ukraine. This must be taken into consideration when contemplating the public policy defence in Ukraine
 See https://sk.ua/publications/a-new-approach-to-the-public-policy-defence-in-ukraine/.