1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of penalties in the amount of UAH 4,642,000 from a supplier for the delivery of goods of inadequate quality to a Military Unit within the framework of a defense procurement contract.
2. When rendering its decision, the Supreme Court was primarily guided by procedural issues regarding the representation of state interests. The Court noted that in legal relations concerning defense procurement, a military unit acts as a business entity, rather than as a public authority or an entity vested with administrative powers. Referring to the legal position of the Joint Chamber of the Commercial Cassation Court, set forth in the resolution of July 17, 2026, in case No. 910/6530/24, the Court confirmed that the prosecutor lacks legal grounds to file a lawsuit in the interests of a military unit in such disputes. Since the prosecutor had no authority for representation, the statement of claim is considered signed by a person who does not have the right to do so. Accordingly, the courts of lower instances that examined the case on its merits committed a violation of procedural law. In this regard, the Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower instances without proceeding to an assessment of the quality of the goods or the expert findings.
3. The Supreme Court decided to set aside the decisions of the lower courts and leave the prosecutor’s statement of claim without consideration.
****
In this case, the Supreme Court confirmed and applied the legal position set forth by the Joint Chamber of the Commercial Cassation Court in the resolution of July 17, 2026 (case No. 910/6530/24), which establishes the impossibility of a prosecutor filing a lawsuit in the interests of a military unit in disputes where the latter acts as a business entity, which effectively limits the practice of prosecutorial representation in the sphere of defense procurement.
