The Supreme Court explained who is responsible for providing information to co-owners of an apartment building

Failure to provide a co-owner of an apartment building with information about the activities of the OSBB constitutes a violation of their right to receive information by the HOA represented by the board, not by the chairman of the board as a separate official, since the obligation to provide the information prescribed by law is ensured by the association's board within its powers according to the legally defined competence regarding record keeping. This conclusion was made by the Commercial Cassation Court of the Supreme Court (CCCS) on 26.03.2026 in case No. 752/9416/23.

The subject of the CCCS review was the cassation appeal of the HOA in a case filed by a co-owner against the HOA regarding the recognition of the association's inaction as unlawful and the obligation to provide documents.

The claims were based on the violation of the HOA member's rights to access information and documents related to the HOA activities.

The Commercial Court, by a decision upheld by the appellate commercial court, dismissed the claim in part concerning the obligation of the HOA to provide the board's decisions and the HOA budget for 2022. It closed proceedings regarding the claims to oblige the HOA to provide certain documents to the co-owner. In other parts, the claim was satisfied. It recognized the unlawful inaction of the HOA represented by the chairman of the board for failing to provide the co-owner with access to and the ability to copy documents upon his requests.

The HOA was ordered to provide the co-owner within one month from the date the court decision comes into force with documents concluded/performed from 20.10.2020 until the date the decision becomes effective for review and copying.

In partially satisfying the claims, the commercial court reasoned that contracts, orders, bank statements, payroll information, and documents of financial and economic activity contain information about the technical condition of the common property of the apartment building residents, the conditions of its maintenance and operation, expenses for maintaining the common property, and income received from its use; therefore, the co-owner has the right to receive such documents.

COURT'S ASSESSMENT

As noted by the CCCS, since the co-owner's right to receive information about the HOA activities was violated, the lower commercial courts reasonably concluded that there were grounds to satisfy the claims regarding the obligation of the HOA to provide documents that were not given to the co-owner.

At the same time, the CCCS believes that ensuring the plaintiff's rights as HOA member lies with the legal entity as a whole, whose interests are represented by the executive body — the board.

However, the first-instance commercial court recognized the unlawful inaction of the HOA represented by the chairman of the board, which was agreed upon by the appellate commercial court, leaving this decision unchanged.

From the circumstances established by the courts, it appears that neither the chairman nor the deputy chairman of the board fulfilled their obligation to provide the plaintiff with the requested documents in the part of the claims satisfied by the court.

According to Article 18 of the Law of Ukraine "On Associations of Co-owners of Apartment Buildings," the fulfillment of the association's obligations belongs to the powers of its board according to the association's charter.

The board is elected to manage the current activities of the association.

The board has the right to make decisions on issues of the association's activities defined by the charter. The board is the executive body of the association and is accountable to the general meeting.

The board's competence includes, in particular, preparing the budget, balance sheet, and annual report of the association; maintaining record keeping, accounting, and reporting on the association's activities (parts 17, 18, 20 of Article 10 of the Law "On Associations of Co-owners of Apartment Buildings").

The HOA created by the owners of apartments and non-residential premises in an apartment building is the entity that holds and manages information regarding the apartment building in which it was created and regarding the activities of such association.

Thus, the law provides co-owners the right to receive information about the activities of the created HOA, and the implementation of this right is assigned to the information holder, i.e., the OSBB represented by its statutory bodies.

The fulfillment of the HOA obligation to provide the information prescribed by law is ensured by the association's board within its powers according to the legally defined competence regarding record keeping in the association.

Therefore, the courts mistakenly recognized the unlawful inaction of the HOA represented by the chairman of the board, since the failure of the co-owner to receive information about the HOA activities is a violation of their right to receive information by the HOA represented by the board. In view of the above, the CCCS changed the appealed ruling and decision in this part.

The full text of the CCCS ruling dated 26.03.2026 in case No. 752/9416/23 can be found at this link.

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 page to stay informed about the most important events.