Here is the translation of the legal text:
1. The subject of the dispute is the legitimacy of the accrual of payment for centralized heating by “Kyivteploenergo” based on the understated total heating area of the building, and the obligation to recalculate.
2. The Court of Appeal closed the appeal proceedings because the appeal was signed by a person (the plaintiff’s husband) who did not have the status of a lawyer or legal representative, considering that this case was not a minor one. The Supreme Court disagreed with this, pointing out that the Court of Appeal did not take into account that the case was considered under the rules of simplified proceedings, which indicates that the court of first instance recognized it as a minor case. Also, the Supreme Court noted that the plaintiff’s husband had already been allowed to participate in the case as a representative in the court of first instance. This decision actually departs from the formal approach to representation in court, giving preference to substance over form.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Court of Appeal and sent the case back to the Court of Appeal to decide on the opening of appeal proceedings.
