The Supreme Court refused UGV to recover from the CMU UAH 45 billion of lost profits for PSO

The Supreme Court of Ukraine refused Ukrgazvydobuvannya JSC (UGV) to satisfy the claim to the Cabinet of Ministers to collect UAH 45.36 billion from the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine (CMU) for lost profit in connection with the company's special obligations (PSO) regarding the supply of gas. This is reported by Finbalance.

At the end of October 2018, Ukrgazvydobuvannya appealed to the District Administrative Court of the city of Kyiv with a lawsuit against the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, in which it asked to declare Cabinet Resolution No. 187 of March 22, 2017, on the imposition of PSO on UGV as illegal and invalid and to collect from the CMU 45.36 billion UAH in favor of UGV losses in the form of lost profit.

Arguing the lawsuit, the UGV noted that the disputed resolution contradicts the Law of the Natural Gas Market because it does not specify the sources of financing and the procedure for compensating the company (the sale of natural gas from its own production at a price determined at the level of 4,849 UAH/tcm (without VAT ).

The district administrative court and the appellate court refused UGV to satisfy the claim, in connection with which the company filed a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court stated that since the challenged government resolution had lost its validity, at the time of the decision of the courts of the first and appellate instances, "the subject of the dispute within the disputed legal relationship was absent, which excludes the possibility of meeting the claims of the UGV."

It should be noted that in June 2020, the Commercial Court of the city of Kyiv refused to satisfy another claim of UGV to the Cabinet of Ministers for the collection of UAH 56.8 billion. UGV justified its demands by the fact that the government, having assigned special responsibilities to UGV regarding the provision of gas to the population, deprived the company of the opportunity to sell gas at market prices and did not determine the sources of financing and the procedure for determining compensation.