Publication date: 14.07.2025
I specialize in resolving complex legal issues in the fields of energy, commercial, and administrative law. I combine deep legal expertise with hands-on experience in litigation, contract work, and business support.
Initial Data:
A client contacted me — a natural gas supplier who, under an active contract, was supplying gas to a municipal institution operating within the framework of a local budget. The supply was regular, but shortly afterward, the institution stopped fulfilling its payment obligations.
For two months, gas consumption continued while no payments were made, resulting in a debt exceeding 1.3 million UAH.
Issue:
The client set a clear task — recover the debt through court proceedings, as negotiations with the debtor brought no results, and repayment was constantly delayed under the pretext of "temporary lack of budget financing".
The municipal institution, in response to the claims, did not deny the fact of gas consumption, but refused to acknowledge the debt, referring to lack of budget allocations.
Resolved:
After a thorough analysis of the contract, reporting documents, supply volumes, and correspondence between the parties, I prepared a statement of claim for debt recovery, which was submitted to the Commercial Court.
The claim was supported by:
- primary documents (contracts, delivery-acceptance acts, invoices),
- official responses from JSC "Odesagas" confirming the actual volumes of natural gas consumed;
- correspondence with the municipal institution acknowledging receipt of the resource.
The institution filed a response in which it objected to the claim, stating that the lack of local budget funds supposedly justified a delay or exemption from obligations.
Client Outcome:
In the Commercial Court, a clear legal position was formed, based on the case law of the Supreme Court of Ukraine, which states:
"The lack of budget allocations is not grounds for failure or improper fulfillment of obligations by a legal entity."
The court agreed with the plaintiff's arguments and:
fully satisfied the claim;
issued a decision to recover the full amount of the debt for consumed natural gas from the municipal institution.
Result:
The natural gas supplier — my client — received a court decision in their favor, confirming their right to payment for the delivered resource.
The Commercial Court, after examining the case facts, submitted documents, and legal positions, concluded that the gas supply was carried out in full per the terms of the contract, and therefore the client has a lawful right to receive payment for services rendered.- The court found the defendant's arguments unsubstantiated and pointed out the inadmissibility of avoiding liability due to "budget shortfall".
The court's emphasis on established case law, confirming that lack of budget funding does not release a party from liability for financial obligations, was particularly important. The court stressed that a budget deficit is not a legal excuse for failing to pay for a resource already consumed. - Enforcement proceedings were initiated — the funds were subject to actual recovery through compulsory measures. Based on the court-issued writ of execution, the case was handed over to the State Enforcement Service. This allowed the start of actual enforcement of the debt, including the seizure of the debtor’s accounts and recovery from budget allocations designated for the institution.
Thus, thanks to a well-structured legal position, strong evidence, and professional legal support, the client not only won the case but also received a real mechanism for restoring their right to payment, even despite resistance from a budget-funded organization.
This case once again proves that even when the debtor is a municipal institution, and the justification is lack of budget financing, timely legal support enables the supplier to defend their interests and achieve full recovery of the debt.
As a professional lawyer from Odesa, I help businesses receive what is rightfully theirs under the law — regardless of the debtor’s status.
