21.01.2026
Energy Club held an emergency online discussion titled “Import Blockade: How the Supreme Court Ruling Threatens Ukraine’s Energy Security.” Market participants, lawyers, and experts discussed the critical situation following the ruling by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court (Case No. 920/19/24). The court decision effectively cements a ban on price increases in public procurement contracts by more than 10%. In the context of wartime and the volatility of the European market, this makes electricity imports for budget institutions impossible.
Maksym Nemchynov, Vice President of Energy Club and the meeting’s moderator, outlined the scale of the problem, emphasizing the conflict between market realities and judicial practice.
“We understand perfectly well that import electricity prices, especially during peak hours, can differ significantly from those in Ukraine. However, the ruling of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court effectively prohibits changing the price by more than 10% within the framework of an existing contract. This may hinder the supply of electricity to critical infrastructure and budget institutions,” stated Maksym Nemchynov.
He emphasized that the consequences are already being felt: suppliers are mass-terminating contracts to avoid losses and criminal cases, and tenders on Prozorro are failing because no one wants to operate at a loss.
Vitalii Bulat, Partner at FEDOTOV & PARTNERS Law Firm, provided a detailed analysis of the resolution. He noted that while the Court did not retreat from its previous rigid position regarding the 10% limit, it left a small margin for maneuver in new contracts.
“The Court remained on its position that an increase… can happen only once and must be calculated in aggregate from the original contract price… However, a positive moment is the Court’s conclusion: procurement during martial law must be governed by the ‘Special Provisions’ (Osoblyvosti). These allow for repeated price increases (up to 10% at a time) and up to 50% in total,” explained Vitalii Bulat.
The lawyer also drew attention to Subparagraph 7 of Paragraph 19 of the “Special Provisions,” which allows for formula-based pricing. This is more appropriate for the market, though in practice, courts and procuring entities often ignore this option.
Olga Tagieva, Head of the NGO “Energy Union,” emphasized that the market is being driven into a dead end, and there is a lack of dialogue with responsible government bodies (specifically the Ministry of Economy).
“The issues occurring today lead to the conclusion: it is better not to work than to work… Suppliers shouldn’t expect that [law enforcement] won’t come for them—they simply haven’t had time yet. I believe a collapse in this market is coming… We need to understand that the issue lies not only with our suppliers but also with the cases currently being heard in court,” stated Olga Tagieva.
She called for a meeting with First Deputy Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko, as the Ministry of Economy’s recommendations on imports often lack a realistic implementation mechanism for budget institutions.
Dmytro Morhun, Managing Partner at ANTEVERIS Law Firm, who represented the defendant in this high-profile case, spoke about the risks of criminal prosecution for market participants.
“The Prosecutor’s Office follows the path of formal enforcement of the Criminal Code… All cases under Articles 364 and 191 (abuse of power, misappropriation of property) investigated regarding the signing of supplementary agreements will be sent to court. This creates additional leverage for pressure on both suppliers and consumers. No one wants to stick their neck out for criminal liability… This will disrupt the implementation of the law and electricity supply,” warned Dmytro Morhun.
Olesia Serebrianyk, Attorney and PhD in Law, pointed out the fundamental discrepancy between EU approaches and the position of the Ukrainian court.
“The key European Union framework for energy contracts does not contain the category of ‘fixed prices.’ They proceed from the fact that electricity is a commodity traded on the exchange; the price is formed by the market… Therefore, price adaptation mechanisms are admissible if they are transparent and symmetrical,” noted Olesia Serebrianyk.
The expert suggested that in future legal disputes, the application of Article 44 of the Law “On Public Procurement” should be raised, which places responsibility for violations on the authorized person of the buyer, rather than shifting all negative consequences exclusively onto the supplier.
During the discussion, the conflict between two special laws was also raised: “On the Electricity Market” and “On Public Procurement.” Maksym Nemchynov stressed that it is impossible to regulate a dynamic electricity market with static procurement norms:
“The Law on the Electricity Market regulates legal relations regarding buying and selling… Regulating these relations in parallel with another law for a separate group of consumers is wrong. If we want integration with the European market, this configuration cannot work.”
