1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt from the joint-stock company under the natural gas transportation agreement, namely the fee for negative daily imbalances, calculated on the basis of the corrective act.
2. The Supreme Court, when considering the cassation appeal, focused on the issue of the legality of collecting the cost of balancing services under the corrective act, considering that the initial act did not take into account changes in regulatory regulation (NCRECP resolution). The court emphasized that although the principle of “pacta sunt servanda” is important, in this case it should be taken into account that the corrective act corrected an arithmetic-legal error, and the defendant, as a participant in the gas market, should have been aware of the changes in regulation. The court also noted that the cost of the fee for daily imbalances was expected and predictable for the defendant, and the refusal to pay the corrective act is illegal. The court departed from the previous conclusion about the impossibility of recovering debt under corrective acts, emphasizing that the principle of “pacta sunt servanda” should be applied taking into account the circumstances of the case and the need to ensure fairness.
3. The court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and upheld the decision of the court of first instance to satisfy the claim, and also granted the cassation appeal regarding the distribution of court costs, recovering court fees and part of the costs of professional legal assistance from the defendant.
