The subject of the dispute in this case is the recovery of debt under a dispatch management services agreement, in particular, the lawfulness of charging 3% per annum on the planned cost of services.
In rendering its decision, the Court was guided by the principle that the obligation to pay 3% per annum and inflation losses is accessory (supplementary) to the principal monetary obligation; therefore, they must be charged exclusively on the amount of services actually rendered, rather than on planned volumes. The Supreme Court took into account the legal position of the Joint Chamber of the Commercial Cassation Court, which emphasizes the necessity of determining the cost of services based on service delivery certificates, rather than on abstract planned indicators. The courts of previous instances did not properly verify the plaintiff’s calculations and did not establish what portion of the claimed amounts pertains to services actually rendered and what portion pertains to planned ones. Since the courts failed to provide a legal assessment of the defendant’s arguments regarding the unlawfulness of charging interest on planned volumes, this was recognized as a violation of procedural law. Consequently, the court concluded that the decisions regarding the accrual of 3% per annum were premature and required additional examination of evidence. In its decision, the Court referred to the legal position of the Joint Chamber of the Commercial Cassation Court in case No. 914/2625/23, which effectively clarifies the approach to the application of Art. 625 of the Civil Code of Ukraine in legal relations concerning dispatching services, departing from the previous practice of accruing sanctions on planned volumes.
The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the courts of previous instances regarding the recovery of 3% per annum in the amount of UAH 396,040.67 and remanded the case in this part for a new trial to the Commercial Court of Zaporizhzhia Region.
