Fitness club unilaterally terminated the contract and did not allow the man to use the paid membership: what the Supreme Court decided

In the Supreme Court ruling dated June 23, 2026, in case No. 554/96/23, the Civil Cassation Court considered a dispute regarding the performance of a fitness club service contract after the change of the club's service provider and the protection of consumer rights.

This legal position has practical significance for all areas where services are provided based on public contracts, including sports clubs, medical centers, educational institutions, and other service enterprises.

Circumstances of the case

The plaintiff had been using the fitness club's services for over ten years. In June 2022, he paid to extend a full club membership card for 12 months and ten personal training sessions.

After the payment, the plaintiff was denied access to the gym, pool, and other club areas. Later, he received a notification from an individual entrepreneur about the unilateral termination of contractual relations with an offer to refund the money. At the same time, the defendant did not provide evidence of the client's violation of club rules.

The plaintiff went to court, requesting to declare the termination notice invalid, to oblige the defendants to perform the contract, not to interfere with the use of club services, and to compensate for moral damages.

The court of first instance declared the termination notice invalid but denied the other claims.

The appellate court concluded that after recognizing the unilateral refusal from the contract as invalid, the consumer retained the right to receive the paid services, obliged the defendants to perform the contract, not to obstruct access to the club, and awarded the plaintiff 5,000 UAH for moral damages.

Disagreeing with the appellate court's ruling, the defendants filed a cassation appeal. They argued that the court unjustifiably recognized the new service provider as a party to the contract, although the replacement of a party in an obligation requires the consent of its participants, and unjustifiably imposed on them the obligation to perform the contract and compensate moral damages.

Position of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court indicated that every person has the right to protect their civil rights in case of violation, non-recognition, or dispute. A violation of a right is associated with depriving its subject of the possibility to fully or partially exercise their private (civil) right. To apply a method of protection, it is necessary to establish which rights of the plaintiff were violated and for the protection of which rights they applied to the court.

The court emphasized the principle of contract binding and stated that unilateral refusal from an obligation or unilateral change of its terms is not allowed unless otherwise provided by the contract or law.

Article 629 of the Civil Code of Ukraine enshrines one of the foundations on which civil law is based — the binding nature of the contract. That is, upon conclusion of the contract and the emergence of the obligation, its parties acquire duties that they must fulfill.

The Supreme Court stressed that Article 633 of the Civil Code of Ukraine provides that an entrepreneur has no right to refuse to conclude a public contract if they have the ability to provide the consumer with the corresponding goods (works, services).

The court explained that recognizing the unilateral termination of the contract as invalid and the courts' established fact of obstructing the plaintiff from using the paid services are sufficient grounds to protect his rights as a consumer and to oblige the defendants to perform the contract.

Under such circumstances, the appellate court reasonably concluded that this is a basis for protecting the plaintiff's rights as a consumer of fitness club services and satisfying related claims to oblige performance of the contract and not to obstruct his free access to the fitness club premises.

The Supreme Court pointed out that the said contract is essentially a public contract for the provision of services between an entrepreneur and a consumer, the notice of termination of contractual relations under this contract was declared invalid by the court of first instance, and the fitness club services to persons who paid the previous service provider began to be provided by another entrepreneur, which was publicly announced to consumers.

At the same time, financial and other relations between entrepreneurs in providing such services cannot limit the rights of the consumer.

The Supreme Court also noted that since the case established a violation of the plaintiff's rights as a consumer of fitness club services by the joint actions of the defendants, considering the nature of the violated right, the circumstances established by the courts, and the content of the plaintiff's claims, the appellate court reasonably concluded that the plaintiff is entitled to compensation for moral damages.

The appellate court took into account the depth of the plaintiff's physical and mental suffering, the requirements of reasonableness and fairness, and concluded that there are grounds to award the plaintiff 5,000 UAH in compensation for moral damages.

Thus, the Supreme Court left the appellate court's ruling unchanged and confirmed the consumer's right to the performance of the concluded contract, removal of obstacles to the use of paid services, and compensation for moral damages.

The court formulated an important approach for law enforcement practice that internal changes of the service provider or financial relations between entrepreneurs cannot worsen the consumer's position or deprive them of rights arising from the valid public contract.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, Facebook page and Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.