1. The subject matter of the dispute is the prosecutor’s claim to invalidate a supply contract concluded as a result of a public procurement due to anti-competitive concerted practices by the participants and the application of consequences of the invalidity of a legal transaction that contradicts the interests of the state.<\/p>\n
2. In this case, the Supreme Court effectively established a departure from previous practice, relying on the position of the Joint Chamber of the Commercial Cassation Court dated 19.12.2025 in case No. 922\/3456\/23. The Court emphasized that Part 3 of Article 228 of the Civil Code of Ukraine is an exceptional sanction of a confiscatory nature, which cannot be applied automatically solely on the basis of a decision of the Antimonopoly Committee regarding anti-competitive actions. The Court noted that anti-competitive behavior is not always identical to the intent to cause harm to the interests of the state; therefore, to apply such a strict provision, it is necessary to prove the parties’ intent specifically to undermine the economic foundations of the state. The Court also emphasized that the prosecutor failed to prove that actual property damage was caused to the state or that there was an overpayment for the goods, which precludes the causal link required to qualify the transaction as one that is knowingly contrary to the interests of the state. Furthermore, the application of confiscation without a court verdict in criminal proceedings was, in this instance, deemed a disproportionate interference with the right to property, which is contrary to the case law of the ECtHR.<\/p>\n
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts and adopted a new decision, which fully denied the satisfaction of the prosecutor’s claims.<\/p>\n