The Supreme Court Allowed Notification of Cooperative Meetings by Phone
A cooperative member's notification about the date, time, and place of the general meeting does not necessarily have to be made exclusively in writing if the cooperative's charter provides for an alternative method of informing, including telephone communication. At the same time, the absence of written confirmation of such notification is not an unconditional ground for declaring the meeting's decisions invalid if the fact of notification is proven by other proper and admissible evidence.
This conclusion was made by the panel of judges of the Commercial Cassation Court within the Supreme Court.
The plaintiff applied to the court demanding to invalidate the decision of the general meeting of the servicing cooperative regarding his exclusion from the membership, referring to the fact that he was not properly notified about the meeting and the absence of grounds for such exclusion.
The courts established that the cooperative's board, after an incident between cooperative members, initiated an extraordinary general meeting where the issue of the plaintiff's exclusion was considered. As a result of the vote, the majority of cooperative members supported this decision.
The courts of first and appellate instances denied the claim, concluding that the plaintiff was informed about the meeting, the meeting was competent, and the grounds for exclusion complied with the cooperative's charter.
Reviewing the case, the Supreme Court noted that the legislation does not specify a particular method of notifying cooperative members about general meetings, so such a procedure can be established by the charter. In this case, the charter explicitly provided for the possibility of notifying members about extraordinary meetings through personal telephone communication.
The court found that the cooperative's leader made phone calls to the plaintiff before the meeting, which is confirmed by mobile operator data and other evidence, including information about the use of the phone number and the plaintiff's family members' awareness of the meeting.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the fact of notification can be confirmed by a combination of evidence, not exclusively by written documents, and is considered proven if the provided evidence is more probable than that presented to refute it.
Given the established circumstances, the Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the previous instances that the plaintiff was properly notified about the general meeting, and therefore, there are no grounds to declare the decision invalid.
Resolution of the Commercial Cassation Court of the Supreme Court dated February 3, 2026, in case No. 925/1498/24.
Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, our page on Facebook and on Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.
