Late in the evening on 15 September, the European Commission finally announced its decision regarding the ban on Ukrainian grain and other food product imports into the EU. Instead, Ukraine must implement self-restriction measures.

To understand what this means and whether Kyiv benefited from such a "compromise," read the column by Olena Omelchenko, head of the international trade practice at the law firm "Ilyashev&Partners." Compromise Not in Kyiv's Interest: What's Behind European Commission's Decision on Ukrainian Grain

The author reminds us that after Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine and the blockade of Black Sea ports, the European Union unilaterally granted Kyiv additional duty-free access to the EU market in order to support Ukraine's economy.

After some time, Poland, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary claimed that their local farmers were being adversely affected due to the significant increase in grain imports from Ukraine and demanded that the EU impose an immediate ban on such imports.

"However, and this is important, the European Commission lacked sufficient legal grounds to introduce protective measures to protect national producers. These countries had not provided enough evidence linking the increase in Ukrainian imports to losses for their national producers," writes the lawyer in her column.

Instead of increasing pressure on the European Commission, these countries began unilaterally imposing trade restrictions on imports of wheat, corn, rapeseed and sunflower seeds from Ukraine at the national level.

This move challenged the European Union since, according to EU rules, trade policy falls under the jurisdiction of supranational EU bodies.

In search of a compromise within the EU, the European Commission, under pressure from these five member states, temporarily restricted Ukrainian grain imports until 15 September.

As a result, the European Commission announced in a press release on 15 September that due to the work of the Coordination Platform and temporary market distortion measures in the five neighbouring states that border Ukraine, the issue had been resolved and therefore, the European Commission would not be extending its ban on importing goods from Ukraine.

At the same time, as Olena Omelchenko writes, the European Commission noted that Ukraine had agreed to take legal measures within 30 days (including an export licensing system) to prevent grain volumes from increasing. Additionally, Ukraine agreed to introduce effective export control measures for four groups of goods starting from 16 September to prevent any market distortions in neighbouring EU member states.

As a result, Ukraine must submit its Action Plan by the evening of Monday, 18 September 2023.

At the same time, Poland, Hungary and Slovakia announced national import restrictions on Ukrainian grain. This poses a challenge for Brussels, as it will need to compel these countries to return to a unified trade policy.

"However, as a result of this compromise, Ukraine finds itself in an awkward position. The problem is that there are no legal self-restriction measures, yet Kyiv has to provide an action plan by the end of the working day on 18 September 2023," Olena Omelchenko notes.

It appears that the export self-restriction to which Kyiv has reluctantly agreed will constitute a violation of trade rules by Ukraine.

The author suggests that Ukraine has accepted this not very favourable step to avoid complications and division within the EU.

Perhaps this move is politically expedient for Ukraine – the vital preservation of the political unity of the European Union. However, this could become the prologue to a much larger problem.

Read more in the column by Olena Omelchenko, head of the international trade practice at the law firm "Ilyashev&Partners." Compromise Not in Kyiv's Interest: What's Behind European Commission's Decision on Ukrainian Grain