1. **Subject of the dispute:** Recovery of debt for natural gas supplied by the “supplier of last resort” (SOLR), as well as penalties, inflationary losses, and 3% per annum.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
* The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court departed from previous legal positions (specifically in cases No. 917/1297/23 and No. 917/692/24), which qualified the relationship between the consumer and the SOLR as condictional (unjust enrichment) in the event the consumer has outstanding debt.
* The Court emphasized that a natural gas supply contract with an SOLR is a public contract and is considered concluded from the moment the actual supply of gas to the consumer begins, provided the consumer does not have another supplier.
* Automatic registration of a consumer in the SOLR registry on the GTS operator’s information platform is a sufficient basis for the emergence of contractual relations, rather than non-contractual ones.
* The existence of overdue debt on the part of the consumer does not negate the fact that a contract has been concluded, as the legislator has not provided for the automatic termination of such relations without the corresponding actions of the parties.
* An invoice for payment is merely informational in nature; therefore, its non-provision is not a suspensive condition and does not release the consumer from the obligation to pay for the consumed gas within the timelines defined by the model contract.
* Consequently, provisions on contractual liability apply to such legal relations, rather than provisions on the restitution of property acquired without a legal basis.
3. **Court’s decision:** The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling, partially overturned the court of first instance’s decision, and rendered a new decision fully satisfying the claims for the recovery of the principal debt, penalties, 3% per annum, and inflationary losses.
