1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt for the payment of services for dispatching (operational and technological) management, namely 3% per annum and inflation losses, accrued in connection with the delay in payment.
2. The court of cassation instance, when considering the case, focused on the issue of the legitimacy of the reduction by the courts of previous instances of the amount of 3% per annum, which was subject to recovery from the defendant for delay in fulfilling the monetary obligation. The court took into account that the courts of previous instances reduced the amount of interest, referring to the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding the possibility of reducing the amount of annual interest, taking into account the circumstances of the case, in particular, the importance of the defendant as a critical infrastructure facility, its restoration work, and late payments by other market participants. However, the Supreme Court took into account the later position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, according to which 3% per annum is the minimum amount of interest that a creditor can count on in case of improper fulfillment of the obligation by the debtor, and this amount is not subject to reduction by the court.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances in the part of the refusal to recover 3% per annum and adopted a new decision to satisfy the claim in this part, having recovered from the defendant in favor of the plaintiff UAH 218,265.41 of 3% per annum and court costs.
