A Woman Was Evicted from an Apartment by the Supreme Court's Decision and Then Ordered to Pay over 16 Thousand UAH of Water Debt

The actual user of a property is not exempt from paying for water supply and sewage services simply because they are not the apartment’s owner. If an individual has resided in a dwelling, utilised utility services, and is deemed a joint debtor under the specific circumstances of the case, the utility provider is entitled to demand payment of the debt from that individual.

This conclusion was reached by the Chernivtsi Court of Appeal, which upheld the decision to recover over UAH 16,500 in debt in favour of the municipal enterprise "Chernivtsivodokanal."

The court also noted that the mere entry into force of an eviction decision does not automatically signify the termination of the dwelling’s use. The crucial factor is establishing whether the individual continued to physically reside in the apartment and utilise utility services.

Case Circumstances

The municipal enterprise "Chernivtsivodokanal" initiated legal proceedings to recover debt for centralised water supply and sewage services.

Initially, the enterprise claimed almost UAH 25,000 but later refined its claim. After it was established that the defendant had registered at a different address from 1 April 2024, the enterprise requested to recover UAH 16,584.71 in debt for the period from 1 May 2017 to 31 March 2024, in addition to court fees.

The plaintiff stated that the defendant had actually resided in the apartment for a considerable period, utilised water supply and sewage services, but failed to pay for them.

"Chernivtsivodokanal" also referred to the fact that following the publication on 1 May 2022 of the public individual accession agreement, contractual relations arose through the consumer’s accession, and the absence of a separate written contract does not exempt from the obligation to pay for actually received utility services.

Decision of the Court of First Instance

The Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Chernivtsi fully upheld the claim.

The court reasoned that contractual relations arose between the parties based on the public accession agreement and the actual use of utility services.

The court also found that the defendant had resided in the disputed apartment with her family during the period for which the debt was charged. On this basis, it concluded that she, as a person who actually used the dwelling and utility services, is obliged to pay for them.

Arguments of the Appeal

In the appeal, the defendant requested the cancellation of the decision regarding the recovery of UAH 14,251.67.

She claimed that she had not been the owner of the apartment for over ten years, and therefore the proper defendant should be its owner. In addition, the defendant stated that since 2022 she had been living abroad, her children had become adults or had left the disputed dwelling, and following the Supreme Court’s eviction ruling, she no longer used the apartment.

Along with the appeal, she also requested to submit new evidence regarding her children’s place of residence.

Why the Appellate Court Refused

The Chernivtsi Court of Appeal left the decision unchanged.

Firstly, the panel of judges refused to accept new evidence. The court noted that the issue of the defendant’s and her family members' actual residence had already been examined by the court of first instance, and the appellant failed to prove that she could not submit this evidence earlier for reasons beyond her control.

Considering the dispute on its merits, the appellate court noted that the Law "On Housing and Communal Services" imposes the obligation to pay for utilities not only on the owner of the dwelling but also on other capable persons who reside and/or are registered in the consumer’s dwelling. Such persons bear joint responsibility for the payment of utilities, so the provider has the right to demand fulfilment of this obligation from any of the joint debtors.

The panel of judges emphasised that the owner’s obligation to maintain their property does not negate the obligation of the person who actually used the dwelling and consumed utilities to pay for them.

Why the Eviction Arguments Did Not Prevail

The appellate court also rejected the defendant’s argument that after the Supreme Court’s eviction ruling came into force, she no longer used the apartment.

The panel noted that the mere entry into force of an eviction decision does not indicate the cessation of actual use of the dwelling if the person continues to reside in the apartment.

The case materials confirmed that the eviction decision was actually enforced only on 17 February 2025, when the state executor completed the enforcement proceedings and handed the apartment over to the owner. Until then, the defendant and her family continued to reside in the disputed dwelling. This was confirmed by a certificate from the housing cooperative, materials from another civil case, as well as written explanations and statements from the defendant and her family members submitted during the consideration of the eviction postponement.

The court also disagreed with the arguments about the defendant living outside Ukraine. According to the panel, passport stamps only confirm multiple border crossings but do not prove her permanent residence outside Ukraine during the entire disputed period. The defendant did not provide other proper evidence.

Legal Position of the Court

The Chernivtsi Court of Appeal noted that in disputes concerning the recovery of debts for housing and communal services, the decisive factor is establishing the fact that utility services were provided to the consumer and the correctness of the debt calculation. This approach aligns with the legal conclusions of the Supreme Court and the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, to which the appellate court referred.

Given the circumstances of case 727/3689/25, the panel concluded that the defendant’s actual residence in the apartment and use of centralised water supply and sewage services are sufficient grounds to impose on her joint liability for their payment, despite not being the owner and not having a separate written contract. For this reason, the appellate court left the first instance court’s decision unchanged.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua, follow SUD.UA on Google News , and join us on VIBER, WhatsApp, Facebook and on Instagram to stay informed about the important events.