Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared for your interview:
**1. Subject of the Dispute**
The subject of the dispute is the recovery of more than 15 million hryvnias in unjust enrichment (a one-time monetary payment in connection with the death of a serviceman) from the plaintiff’s brother and his cohabitant, as well as compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
**2. Main Arguments of the Court**
The Supreme Court emphasized that a mandate contract and a power of attorney issued on its basis do not grant an agent the right to dispose of the principal’s funds at their own discretion or to misappropriate them, as the agent is obligated to act exclusively in the interests of the principal. The Court noted that the construct of contractual representation *a priori* excludes the possibility of granting powers that contradict the essence of representation, and any actions of an agent must be aimed at protecting the interests of the person they represent. The Supreme Court stressed that upon the expiration of the power of attorney, the legal grounds for the defendant to retain the funds ceased to exist, which creates an obligation for their return pursuant to Article 1212 of the Civil Code of Ukraine. Furthermore, the Court pointed out that the appellate instance erroneously ignored the absence of any legal grounds for the receipt of funds by the co-defendant (the brother’s cohabitant). Additionally, the Court found the appellate court’s conclusion regarding the impossibility of applying a condictio claim to be premature, as the protection of property rights through the return of unjustifiably acquired property is an effective method of legal protection in this situation.
**3. Court Decision**
The Supreme Court set aside the resolution of the appellate court and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court for a full and comprehensive examination of the circumstances of the case.
***
In this decision, the Court notes that it is departing from its previous position established in other Supreme Court rulings regarding the interpretation of the scope of an agent’s authority under a power of attorney and the nature of condictio obligations in representation relationships.
