1. **Subject Matter of the Dispute:** Recovery of debt, penalty, 3% per annum, and inflationary losses under a service agreement for ensuring electricity accessibility for household consumers.
2. **Key Arguments of the Court:**
* The court of cassation instance determined that the court of appeal misapplied the rules of substantive law, specifically subparagraph 2 of paragraph 8 of the Regulation on the Imposition of Public Service Obligations (PSO) on electricity market participants.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that the existence of debt owed by a universal service supplier to SE “NNEGC “Energoatom” constitutes a condition precedent that exempts the “Guaranteed Buyer” from the obligation of timely payment for services.
* It is significant that this payment obligation depends on the absence of debt to “Energoatom,” regardless of whether the electricity was purchased through electronic auctions or through other procedures introduced for the period of martial law.
* The court of appeal erroneously limited the application of this condition precedent only to cases of debt resulting from electronic auctions, which contradicts the position of the Supreme Court.
* Furthermore, the court noted that the appellate instance failed to properly examine all evidence and factual circumstances relevant to the case, particularly regarding the nature of the debt’s origin.
* **Note:** In this decision, the court explicitly states that it takes into account the position set forth in the resolution of the Supreme Court composed of judges of the Joint Chamber of the Commercial Cassation Court dated February 6, 2026, in case No. 910/881/24, which departed from previous conclusions (specifically in case No. 910/1294/23) regarding the restrictive interpretation of the condition precedent.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the resolution of the court of appeal regarding the satisfaction of the claims and remanded the case for a new trial to the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal.
