Good day! I am happy to analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the lawfulness of the actions of the Joint-Stock Company “Ukrainian Railway” regarding the prohibition of admission of wagons of the Limited Liability Company “Cruising Speed” to run on public railway tracks due to the expiration of their service life.
2. The court of appeal suspended proceedings in the case because it considered that the consideration of another case by the Supreme Court (No. 910/3992/23) could affect the resolution of this dispute, in particular, regarding the application of the Order of the Ministry of Infrastructure of Ukraine No. 647 regarding the terms of operation of wagons. The company appealed this decision, arguing that the appellate court did not substantiate how the cassation review of another case prevents the consideration of this case. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, when considering the cassation appeal, focused on the issue of whether the court has the right to suspend proceedings in the case at the stage of its consideration on the merits on grounds not provided for in Part 3 of Article 195 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine. The court analyzed various types of proceedings (general and simplified) and concluded that the restrictions on the grounds for suspending proceedings established by Article 195 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine apply only to general claim proceedings in the court of first instance. The court also noted that the appellate court checked the Defendant’s arguments regarding the existence of circumstances under which the court has the right to suspend proceedings in the case, including the fact that the court of first instance, in substantiating its decision, referred to the conclusions in case No. 910/8493/22, the issue of deviation from which was considered by the court of cassation, in view of which it came to a reasonable conclusion about the existence of circumstances that give it the right to suspend proceedings in the case in accordance with paragraph 7 of Part 1 of Article 228 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine.
3. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dismissed the Company’s cassation appeal, and the appellate court’s ruling on the suspension of proceedings in the case remained unchanged, deviating from previous conclusions regarding the application of Article 195 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine.
