**1. Subject matter of the dispute:**
\nThe subject matter of the dispute is a prosecutor’s claim for the invalidation of a procurement contract and the recovery of funds into the state revenue due to the anti-competitive concerted practices committed by the tender participants.<\/p>\n
**2. Court’s arguments:**
\n* The court emphasized that the application of the consequences of an invalid transaction under Part 3 of Article 228 of the Civil Code of Ukraine (recovery into state revenue) is an exceptional measure, which has the characteristics of confiscation and requires compliance with the principle of proportionality.
\n* The Supreme Court highlighted that the mere fact of a violation of the legislation on the protection of economic competition is not an automatic ground for declaring a contract invalid as one that knowingly contradicts the interests of the state and society.
\n* To apply this provision, it is necessary to prove the existence of the parties’ intent to commit a transaction with the purpose that knowingly contradicts the interests of the state, and to consider the possibility of choosing less burdensome measures of protection (e.g., restitution or recovery of damages).
\n* The court noted that the contract had been fully executed by the parties back in 2018, and the prosecutor failed to provide evidence that the goods were supplied at inflated prices or that more advantageous offers existed.
\n* A significant reference is made to the position of the Joint Chamber of the Commercial Cassation Court (Case No. 922\/3456\/23), which clarified that the provision of Part 3 of Article 228 of the Civil Code of Ukraine cannot be applied solely due to a violation of competition rules unless significant damage to the state or the existence of a criminal offense is proven.
\n* The court concluded that interfering with the property rights of a bona fide participant (or a party that has executed the contract) without compelling evidence of harm to the public interest is disproportionate.<\/p>\n
**3. Court’s decision:**
\nThe Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, by which the prosecutor’s claims were dismissed.<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
**Note:** In this decision, the Supreme Court explicitly states that it takes into account the position of the Joint Chamber of the Commercial Cassation Court (ruling dated December 19, 2025, in Case No. 922\/3456\/23), which significantly clarified and effectively departed from previous approaches of judicial panels regarding the possibility of automatically invalidating procurement contracts based on Part 3 of Article 228 of the Civil Code of Ukraine solely due to violations of antitrust legislation.<\/p>\n