This refers to a 2025 ruling by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, which effectively changed the interpretation of the rule regarding allowable price increases in public procurement contracts.
“10%” as a Risk Factor
The rule, originally intended to prevent abuse, has in its new interpretation turned into a rigid restriction — no more than 10% of the initial contract price.
This means that even an economically justified price increase amidst market volatility can be interpreted as a violation.
As a result, agreements previously considered legal are now being declared void, and the parties involved are becoming subjects of judicial and criminal proceedings.
Retrospectivity and Selectivity
A particular threat is posed by the retroactive application of this approach to contracts that have already been fulfilled.
As Oleksandr Kudym notes: “The number of lawsuits filed by prosecution authorities against market participants who increased the unit price already exceeds hundreds, if not approaching a four-digit figure. However, the approach to different companies varies.” This creates a state of legal uncertainty not only for the energy sector but for the entire public procurement system.
The Market and Restrictions
The problem is exacerbated by the specifics of the commodity itself. Electricity is purchased at market prices, which can change daily, while sales under state contracts are limited by fixed rules.
In such a model, suppliers are effectively forced to operate at a loss, which is already leading to decreased interest in tenders and a reduction in imports.
Lack of a Unified Approach
The situation is further complicated by the differing approaches of state institutions. In particular, the Ministry of Economy allows for a more flexible interpretation of price changes — proportional to market fluctuations. This means that the same legal provision has different applications in practice.
Consequently, the established practice creates a systemic risk for the market. If it is not reviewed, it could affect not only businesses but also the stability of energy supply.
Ultimately, the issue extends beyond the legal sphere — and directly concerns the energy security of the country.