The Supreme Court explained when a consumer's counterclaim for utility services should be considered together with debt recovery claims

The Supreme Court, composed of judges of the First Judicial Panel of the Cassation Civil Court, considered case No. 361/12236/24 regarding the acceptance of a counterclaim in a dispute over the recovery of debt for heat supply services. The Court concluded that the consumer's claim to recognize the charges for heat as unlawful is interconnected with the enterprise's claim for debt recovery and should be considered in one proceeding.

Case Summary

In December 2024, the Municipal Enterprise of the Brovary City Council of Brovary District, Kyiv Region, "Brovaryteplovodoenerhiya," filed a lawsuit to recover debt from the apartment owner for heat supply services under the personal account for the period from December 2021 to November 2024 in the amount of UAH 14,605.80.

In March 2025, the defendant filed a counterclaim against the municipal enterprise. She requested to recognize the charges for heat supply services for the same period and in the same amount as unlawful, to stop further charges until the dispute is resolved on the merits, to oblige the enterprise to order an expert evaluation of the boiler equipment of the autonomous heat supply system of the building, to ensure its quality repair and restore the functioning of the autonomous heat supply system, to submit an application to the National Commission for State Regulation of Energy and Public Utilities (NKREKP) to establish a separate tariff for the building equipped with the autonomous heat supply system, and to recalculate the heat supply charges for the disputed period according to tariffs established by law.

Justifying the counterclaim, the defendant stated that the charges for heat supply for the residents of the building, including herself, were made unlawfully and are subject to recalculation.

In the cassation appeal, the defendant's representative emphasized that both the original and counterclaims arose from the same legal relations established between the parties based on the housing and communal services agreement. The reason for the parties' appeal to the court was mutual accusations of non-fulfillment of obligations undertaken by each party.

Decisions of the Courts of First and Appeal Instances

The Brovary City District Court of Kyiv Region refused to accept the counterclaim. The Kyiv Court of Appeal left this ruling unchanged.

The courts reasoned that the claims of the original and counterclaims have different subjects of proof, and therefore their joint consideration is inappropriate and may lead to delays and complications in the case review.

Legal Conclusions of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recalled that according to Article 193 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, a counterclaim is accepted for joint consideration with the original claim if both claims are interconnected and their joint consideration is appropriate. In particular, such interconnection exists when the claims arise from the same legal relations or when satisfying the counterclaim may fully or partially exclude satisfying the original claim.

The Court noted that a counterclaim is a substantive legal claim of the defendant against the plaintiff, filed for joint consideration with the original claim precisely because satisfying the counterclaim may make it impossible to satisfy the original claim. The interconnection of claims manifests in that they arise from the same legal relations, are based on common circumstances and evidence, or when satisfying one claim excludes satisfying the other.

The Supreme Court pointed out that the municipal enterprise based its original claim on the existence of debt for heat supply services, while in the counterclaim the defendant actually disputed the legality of the very charges that formed the basis for the claimed debt amount.

The cassation court believed that the courts of previous instances did not take into account the content of the counterclaim demands to recognize the charges for heat energy as unlawful for the same period and in the same amount, which are the subject of the original claim. Such claims are interconnected with the debt recovery claims, and satisfying one claim excludes satisfying the other.

The Supreme Court reminded that a counterclaim should be considered jointly with the original claim if they arise from the same legal relations or if satisfying the counterclaim may fully or partially exclude satisfying the original claim. Joint consideration of such claims promotes a complete and objective examination of the case circumstances and prevents the adoption of contradictory court decisions.

The Supreme Court emphasized that joint consideration of these claims is an effective way to resolve the dispute, allows for a full and objective examination of the parties' relations, and avoids the adoption of contradictory court decisions.

As a result, the Supreme Court concluded that the court of first instance prematurely refused to accept the counterclaim, and the appellate court did not remedy the procedural law violations.

The cassation appeal was granted, the ruling of the Brovary City District Court of Kyiv Region dated June 26, 2025, and the decision of the Kyiv Court of Appeal dated November 25, 2025, were canceled, and the case was remanded to the court of first instance for further consideration.

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