Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a detailed analysis:
1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Recovery of debt for thermal energy supply services (including inflationary losses and 3% per annum) for a non-residential premise located in an apartment building.
2. **Court Arguments:**
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the courts of lower instances failed to ensure a comprehensive and full examination of the circumstances of the case, which constitutes a violation of procedural norms.
– The Court pointed out the necessity of mandatory translation into Ukrainian of documents drawn up in a foreign language (Russian), with proper notarized certification; otherwise, such evidence is deemed inadmissible.
– The courts did not assess the defendant’s arguments regarding the inconsistency of the versions of the Distribution Methodology No. 315 applied by the plaintiff with the dates they actually entered into force.
– Issues regarding the plaintiff’s fulfillment of the obligation to notify the consumer about tariff changes and to provide invoices for payment, as required by the contract, remained unexamined.
– The Court emphasized that although the owner of a non-residential premise, even one disconnected from central heating, is obliged to pay a share of the costs for heating common areas, the calculation of these amounts must be arithmetically correct and supported by proper evidence.
– The Supreme Court noted that the courts did not conduct a proper assessment of the technical passports of the premises and other evidence provided by the defendant, which casts doubt on the validity of the conclusions regarding the existence of the debt.
– The Court indicated that when evaluating evidence set forth in a non-state language, courts must be guided by the legal position of the Supreme Court, set out in the resolution of 03/12/2025 in case No. 910/20940/21 (910/19964/23), regarding the mandatory notarization of the translation of such documents.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and remanded the case for a new trial to the Commercial Court of Sumy Oblast.
