Co-owner disconnected gas in the house without the consent of others – the court obliged the gas operator to restore gas supply at its own expense

The Chernivtsi Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Chernivtsi city, which imposed an obligation on the gas distribution network operator to restore the unjustifiably terminated gas supply to the residential building at its own expense.

What caused the dispute

The plaintiff is a pensioner who, at the beginning of the full-scale Russian invasion, lived on the front line in the active combat zone in Donetsk region. A week before the temporary occupation, she was forced to leave her home and property and move to Chernivtsi, where she temporarily settled with her granddaughter in a house with the oral permission of its then owner to live there free of charge. After the latter's death, her daughter, who inherited a share of the house, officially registered the plaintiff's residence in February 2023 according to a state-volunteer project and concluded a written agreement with her as an internally displaced person. The woman received the right to free use of 1/3 of the residential house (a room, kitchen, utility rooms, and an adjoining land plot) and duly paid all utility bills.

Gas was disconnected without the consent of all co-owners

The courts established that the mentioned house is jointly owned by five persons. In July 2025, one of the co-owners unilaterally applied to the gas distribution system operator to join the gas supply contract, and on the same day submitted an application to terminate it, having paid the cost of the respective works, without the written consent of the other co-owners as required by law. As a result, the house was left without gas, depriving the plaintiff of the opportunity to heat the home and use gas appliances.

Two co-owners supported the claims in writing and stated that they did not agree to the gas disconnection. Meanwhile, the co-owner who initiated the disconnection, along with two other owners, did not provide any explanations to the court.

What the courts established

Both courts recognized the disconnection as unlawful due to the absence of evidence of written consent from all co-owners both for signing the application to join the terms of the natural gas distribution contract and for terminating the natural gas distribution to the property, which contradicts the requirements of the Gas Distribution Systems Code.

At the same time, the courts recognized the plaintiff as the actual consumer, since from the moment of concluding the contract she actually consumed natural gas for a long time, receiving supply services and paying for them, thus is considered to have consented to join the terms of the "Standard Natural Gas Distribution Contract" according to Article 634 of the Civil Code of Ukraine regardless of who the personal account is formally opened to.

The Court of Appeal referred to the Supreme Court's practice

In its ruling, the Chernivtsi Court of Appeal additionally referred to the Supreme Court's practice, according to which the consumer is the weaker party in the obligation and requires special legal protection, and the state must maintain a reasonable balance between the interests of the service provider and the consumer.

The court also cited the Supreme Court's conclusion dated November 4, 2020, in case No. 552/3332/19, stating that gas suppliers, being monopolists in this sphere, must not abuse their rights, and disconnection of a consumer is possible only on lawful grounds.

The court took into account the status of the displaced person

The Court of Appeal separately emphasized the plaintiff's status as an internally displaced person – a representative of a vulnerable population category who found herself in difficult life circumstances, is elderly with various health conditions, and lost her permanent residence due to the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine.

According to the Law of Ukraine "On Ensuring the Rights and Freedoms of Internally Displaced Persons," by concluding the contract, the plaintiff had legitimate expectations and hopes for proper living conditions.

What the court decided

The Court of Appeal recognized the first instance court's decision as lawful and well-founded, and the arguments of the appeal were reduced only to disagreement with its conclusions.

The decision of the Chernivtsi Court of Appeal came into legal force on the day of its adoption and may be appealed to the Supreme Court within thirty days.

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