The Supreme Court Explained When Damage to Seals on an Electricity Meter Alone Is Grounds for Recalculating Unaccounted Electricity
The mere absence of evidence of interference with the operation of an electricity meter does not automatically exempt a consumer from liability for damage to its seals. The Supreme Court noted that damage or removal of seals constitutes an independent violation of the Retail Electricity Market Rules, and courts must evaluate all evidence collectively. This conclusion was reached by the Commercial Cassation Court, a division of the Supreme Court, in case No. 902/198/25.
Essence of the Dispute
A farming enterprise challenged a decision by the commission of JSC "Vinnytsiaoblenergo." Following an inspection, the commission recalculated the cost of unaccounted electricity attributed to the enterprise.
During a technical inspection, the distribution system operator recorded mechanical damage to the meter housing at the seal screws. The meter and seals were seized and sent for independent examination. Based on the commission’s findings, the consumer was charged for 287,924 kWh of unaccounted electricity, amounting to UAH 2,175,977.21.
The courts of first and appellate instances ruled in favour of the farming enterprise, annulling the commission’s decision. They concluded that the expert opinion did not confirm interference with the meter’s operation and contained contradictions regarding the nature of the seal damage. Additionally, the courts considered a "consulting opinion" submitted by the plaintiff, which criticised the conducted examination.
What the Supreme Court Stated
The Commercial Cassation Court disagreed with this approach.
The court first noted that the lower courts mistakenly applied the Electricity Usage Rules (EKUE), which had already been repealed at the time of the dispute. The relevant legal relations were governed by the Retail Electricity Market Rules (REREM).
The Supreme Court also emphasised that, according to the REREM, damage or absence of seals constitutes a separate type of violation. To apply the procedure for calculating unaccounted electricity, it is not necessary to additionally prove interference with the metering device or the fact of unaccounted electricity consumption. This approach had already been formulated by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court and remained relevant after the introduction of the REREM.
The Supreme Court on the Evaluation of the Expert Opinion
The cassation court paid special attention to the evaluation of evidence.
The Supreme Court noted that expert examination in such disputes is not optional but a mandatory legal requirement, as it must confirm the fact of seal damage or interference with the commercial metering device. Moreover, the examination is conducted not for the court process but to apply the mechanism provided by the REREM.
According to the cassation instance, the courts unjustifiably rejected the conclusion of the Odessa Scientific Research Institute of Forensic Examinations. They focused on criticising the methodology used by the expert and effectively assumed the specialist’s functions, although the determination of research methods belongs to the expert.
Additionally, the Supreme Court noted that the courts did not properly evaluate the results of the second stage of the examination, during which internal mechanical damage to the seals was found, which, according to the expert, indicated their opening and reattachment.
The "Consulting Opinion" is Not a Repeated Expert Examination
When assessing the evidentiary value of the document cited by the farming enterprise, the Supreme Court stated that the so-called "consulting opinion" is essentially a review of the expert opinion.
The court emphasised that the author of this document did not examine the physical evidence—the meter and seals—but only analysed the already prepared expert opinion. Therefore, such a review is not a repeated or additional examination and cannot be evaluated according to the rules established for court expert opinions.
The Conclusion of the Supreme Court
The Commercial Cassation Court of the Supreme Court concluded that the local and appellate courts made a selective evaluation of evidence, did not examine it collectively, and incorrectly applied substantive and procedural law norms.
Therefore, the Supreme Court satisfied the cassation appeal of JSC "Vinnytsiaoblenergo," annulled the decisions of both instances, and remitted the case for a new trial to the Commercial Court of Vinnytsia region. During the new trial, the court must re-examine all evidence, properly evaluate it, and resolve the dispute considering the legal conclusions of the Supreme Court.
The full text of the Commercial Cassation Court decision of the Supreme Court dated 27 January 2026, in case No. 902/198/25 can be found at this link.
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.
