1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance from the defendant in the case, the proceedings in which were closed due to the absence of the subject of the dispute.<\/p>\n
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of previous instances because they incorrectly applied the norms of procedural law regarding the distribution of court costs in the event of the closure of proceedings in the case due to the absence of the subject of the dispute. The court noted that Article 129 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine applies to the resolution of a dispute on the merits, and Article 130 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine regulates the distribution of court costs upon the closure of proceedings. Since the proceedings were closed on the basis of paragraph 2 of part one of Article 231 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, and the defendant paid the debt after the opening of the proceedings, the plaintiff had no right to demand compensation for court costs. The court emphasized that part five of Article 130 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine only grants the defendant the right to demand compensation for expenses in the event of unreasonable actions by the plaintiff, but not vice versa. The Supreme Court confirmed its previous position, expressed in the resolutions of March 20, 2025 in case No. 910\/10548\/24 and of May 27, 2025 in case No. 910\/6612\/24, regarding the absence of grounds for reimbursement of expenses for professional legal assistance in similar cases.<\/p>\n
3. The court decided to satisfy the cassation appeal, cancel the decisions of previous instances and refuse to satisfy the motion for the recovery of expenses for professional legal assistance.<\/p>\n