Submit your application

CEC-Supreme Court of Ukraine: what should the economic court find out before rejecting the claim?

The Joint Chamber of the CEC of the Supreme Court of Ukraine spoke out on the motivation for refusals to consider claims.

In the ruling in case No. 910/6642/18 of 06/14/19, the courts were explained what exactly they should find out before deciding to dismiss the claim when considering economic disputes in the context of the application of Art. 16 ECU and part 1 of Art. 2 PECU.

By CEC SCU was found out

The plaintiff filed a claim for recognizing his right to use natural gas on a monthly basis in a specific volume, while the gas itself, in fact, did not exist in nature at the time of the claim, since it was consumed.

The gas supply agreement, concluded earlier by the parties, provided for the transfer of ownership of gas to the consumer after the signing of the acceptance certificates.

Based on these circumstances, the claim of the plaintiff is a requirement to establish a legal fact, which cannot be satisfied in the economic process.

In such a situation, the following stages of protection of rights should be observed:

“1) The Economic Court finds out the fact that the plaintiff has a right or a legitimate interest, and if there is such, it finds out whether this right was violated (not recognized, challenged) by the defendant. 2) If there is a fact of violation, the economic court determines whether the violated right can be protected, and if so, whether the method of protection set forth in the statement of claim is effective”.

In the event that these stages are absent, the court has the right to refuse the claim. The court, having considered this dispute, also indicated to the economic courts that there were no grounds for deviating from the legal conclusions set out in the decisions of the Supreme Court of Ukraine on cases No. 910/6914/17 dated 04.04.2018 and No. 910/6916/17 dated 18.04.2018.

SCU, having analyzed the circumstances of the dispute 

He also pointed out to the courts that the stated claim of the plaintiff was aimed at recognizing the existence of the right in the past, and not recognizing the existing violated right, and only the latter can be renewed and, as a result, implemented in the event of its recognition.

In fact, the requirement for the recognition of a right in the past is aimed at establishing the grounds for the existence of a right (legitimate interest), for the protection of which a person has the right to apply to the court, but in itself it is not an effective way of protection.

Therefore, the rejection of the claim in such a situation is fully justified! Any representation of interests in courts should be based on and on the basis of the above rule.



The case was considered by the Supreme Court of Ukraine

The Supreme Court of Ukraine did not allow the bank to prohibit its debtors from leaving Ukraine, since the CPCU does not have such a measure to secure claims as a temporary restriction of the right to travel abroad, even if a foreclosure procedure has been started with respect to mortgage property. Brief overview of […]

Are you familiar with the terms of the loan? That means you was not be deceived by the bank!

The borrower, who has familiarized himself with the terms of the lending, cannot accuse the bank of fraud or must prove his accusation in court, if it came to this. Establishes this, shall we say, dogma, the legal conclusion of the Supreme Court of Ukraine in case No. 569/423/15-c of 03/05/18 and the older conclusion […]

Supreme Court of Ukraine explained how to recover moral damage from the state

The Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court of Ukraine has shown to citizens that the “inviolable” state, according to the conviction of many, can also be brought to justice! With the conclusion contained in the ruling on case No. 823/782/16 of 15.08.19, the CAC of the Supreme Court “punished” the state body for improper consideration […]

The Supreme Court to the Prosecutor’s Office is a friend and comrade! Don’t believe? Read on!

The case № 638/8636/17-c considered by the Supreme Court, 05/13/2020, was closed by a legal conclusion, according to which the inactivity of the prosecutor’s office is not evidence of moral harm, therefore, it cannot be compensated! Initially, the lawsuit was initiated by a citizen who believes that the inaction of the law enforcement system is […]

The granddaughter whiсh is registered in the grandmother’s house, for donation is not an obstacle!

The grandmother in court proved her right to donate housing, despite the fact that her little granddaughter was registered in it! The Supreme court, by its conclusion in case No. 385/1598/18, determined that she is not a parent and not the one who replaces him, therefore, she is free in the right of alienation! Here […]

Civil marriage: showdown because of the apartment bought in it

Family showdown is an eternal topic! Even the array of family legislation and court practice accumulated over decades does not contain answers to all questions regarding family relations! The Supreme Court once again had to figure out whether or not the testimonies of witnesses certified by a notary are considered legal confirmation of a civil […]