En
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.

26.09.2019

168

YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN
SCU: PASSING THE MEDICAL COMMISSION AT WORKING HOURS – NOT ABSENTEEISM!

The Supreme Court of Ukraine considered case No. 699/640/18 (production No. 61-17310sv19) and on 04.12.2019 formed a legal conclusion, which “put in place” the employer who dismissed the employee under the “absenteeism” article. He counted as a truancy the day when she underwent a medical examination. DETAILS OF THE PROCEEDINGS The military unit’s employee filed […]

About the presence of “malicious intent” in the sale of real estate to relatives

On 11.09.19, the Supreme Court of Ukraine considered case No. 554/10202/13-c, in which the heir – the son from the first marriage of the deceased homeowner tried to defend his father’s apartment, sold by his second wife during her husband’s life and by his power of attorney to her own son. He insisted that there […]

Ukrainian Supreme Court on “legalizing real estate with obstacles”

The Ukrainian Supreme Court helped the investor! With the conclusion in case No. 761/5598/15-c of 04.24.2019, he recognized his legal rights in court! History in detail In 2003, an individual investor and a legal entity-developer entered into an agreement on equity participation in the financing of construction. The parties undertook to work together to achieve […]

A raider in a court gown and with a “crust” of a lawyer, nonsense? Not at all!

Judges, lawyers and justice officials love money too! Sometimes they use their connections and powers to improve their financial well-being! Some find themselves a lucrative “hobby”, for example, they are engaged in raiding. SBU officers uncovered a criminal scheme carried out by “raiders in court robes” with the help of lawyers and former employees of […]

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 […]

The child of divorced parents is an object of struggle for attention

In 99% of 100%, a divorce is a problematic event, and the help of a lawyer in a divorce is a necessity that determines the outcome of the case. The division of property is half the trouble, and the struggle for the attention of children is a real problem. Let’s leave the prefaces. Live situations […]