The Court concluded that
Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2025 3:44 am
Therefore, the specified provision of Law No. 922-VIII in the version until April 19, 2020 did not allow changing the price per unit of goods by more than 10% of the price determined by the parties when concluding the purchase agreement, but did not limit the parties from the ability to change such a price many times (there were no restrictions on the timing of price changes) during the term of the agreement within the established 10% in the event of fluctuations in the price of such goods on the market.
Based on the above,
"Therefore, in the new edition, the norm of paragraph 2 of part five of Article 41 of Law No. special database 922-VIII did not change its content regarding the amount of change in the price per unit of goods (no more than 10% of the price determined by the parties when concluding the purchase agreement), but was supplemented by a condition that limited the terms of changing such a price, namely no more than once every 90 days."
However, in our opinion, the grammatical and logical interpretation of the norm indicates that the conclusions of the Supreme Court as a panel of judges of the Administrative Court of Cassation were correct and the Grand Chamber had no reason to depart from the legal conclusions of the administrative court.
Thus, the disputed norm directly provides for the possibility of repeated increases in the price per unit of goods up to 10%, as evidenced by the wording "no more than once every 90 days from the moment of signing the purchase agreement/amending such an agreement to increase the price per unit of goods", however, even such a restriction on the timing of price changes does not apply in cases of changes in the terms of the electricity purchase agreement.
Based on the above,
"Therefore, in the new edition, the norm of paragraph 2 of part five of Article 41 of Law No. special database 922-VIII did not change its content regarding the amount of change in the price per unit of goods (no more than 10% of the price determined by the parties when concluding the purchase agreement), but was supplemented by a condition that limited the terms of changing such a price, namely no more than once every 90 days."
However, in our opinion, the grammatical and logical interpretation of the norm indicates that the conclusions of the Supreme Court as a panel of judges of the Administrative Court of Cassation were correct and the Grand Chamber had no reason to depart from the legal conclusions of the administrative court.
Thus, the disputed norm directly provides for the possibility of repeated increases in the price per unit of goods up to 10%, as evidenced by the wording "no more than once every 90 days from the moment of signing the purchase agreement/amending such an agreement to increase the price per unit of goods", however, even such a restriction on the timing of price changes does not apply in cases of changes in the terms of the electricity purchase agreement.