15.01.2026
In the context of war, where the stability of energy supply is synonymous with national security, any systemic failure in market operations is felt particularly acutely. However, today I want to draw attention not to the consequences of missile attacks, but to a threat that has emerged from within the state system itself. This concerns a legal crisis unfolding in the public procurement market for energy resources, which sets a dangerous precedent for any business cooperating with the state on market terms.
Source: Delo.ua
Imagine you are a fuel supplier for the state, and you signed a contract when the market price was 30 UAH per liter. A few months later, due to global events, the price rose to 40 UAH. You sign a supplementary agreement to reflect the new reality. A quarter later, the price changes again. This is the normal logic of working with commodities, the prices of which are not fixed.
Now imagine this. The court decides that regardless of the number of price changes, the total increase over the entire duration of the contract cannot exceed 10% of the initial price. That is, in our example, no more than 33 UAH. Anything above that is a violation for which you will be forced to return “excess profits”—profits that do not actually exist because you purchased the resource at a high cost yourself.
For a long time, the market hoped for common sense and legal certainty. Unfortunately, on November 21, 2025, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court adopted a Resolution in case No. 920/19/24, which effectively cemented the worst-case scenario for suppliers.
The Court concluded that the provisions of the Law “On Public Procurement” regarding the possibility of increasing the price by up to 10% should be interpreted rigidly. That is, the limit is absolute, and the cumulative increase in the price per unit of goods cannot exceed 10% of the initial contract price, regardless of how many supplementary agreements have been concluded.
Energy is no exception. The special rule for gas and electricity, which the market relied on, concerns only the frequency of price changes (permitted more often than once every 90 days), but it does not abolish the upper limit of 10%.
Clarifications from the Ministry of Economy do not help. The Court indicated that the explanatory letters from the Ministry, which suppliers and contracting authorities relied upon in 2021–2024, are not regulatory acts and do not exempt parties from liability.
According to Energy Club data, prosecutor’s offices have already initiated hundreds of lawsuits based on this logic. Now, following the Grand Chamber’s decision, the number of such cases could grow like an avalanche, threatening dozens of supplier companies with bankruptcy.
The Legislative Paradox: The State fixed the mistake but continues to punish for the past. The absurdity of the situation lies in the fact that the Government has effectively admitted: the 10% “ceiling” rule is unworkable in conditions of market volatility, especially during wartime.
Changes to Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 1178 (as amended by Resolution No. 1067 of September 1, 2025) determined that a price increase per unit of goods of no more than 10 percent applies to each separate instance of a price increase (without limiting the number of changes). Furthermore, the maximum amended price must not exceed 50 percent of the initial price.
This means that officially, the state introduced a realistic mechanism only from September 4, 2025. However, suppliers continue to be prosecuted for contracts from 2021–2024, when they were acting under conditions of a legislative conflict that the state itself later corrected.
This problem is no longer about a dispute in court, as the court has had its say. This is about trust in the state and energy security in 2026. If suppliers are forced to return funds for the good-faith execution of contracts in the past, they will simply refuse to participate in new tenders for hospitals, schools, and water utility companies.
In the autumn of 2025, Energy Club, together with market participants, appealed to the parliamentary committees on energy and economic development. At that time, we warned parliamentarians about the potential severe consequences.
Today, we call for a legislative settlement (effectively, an amnesty) for contracts that were executed prior to September 2025. We cannot destroy the market for complying with established rules, the imperfection of which the Government itself has acknowledged. Without the intervention of the Verkhovna Rada, we risk losing a transparent electricity supply market for the public sector, as well as trust in state institutions.
