DTEK avoids signing individual contracts with apartment co-owners - what the court has decided.

Co-owners of apartments are demanding to enter into individual contracts with them for the provision of electricity distribution services. However, DTEK is avoiding these actions. This is stated in the decision of the Malinovsky District Court of Odessa, published on November 27, 2024.

A man and a woman are co-owners of apartments. An HOA named "OYSTRAHA 19" has been formed at the disputed address. The HOA has a contract with JSC "DTEK Odessa Electric Networks" for the provision of electricity distribution services. The contract is being fulfilled by the parties. They claimed that they wished to enter into individual contracts regarding the disputed issue, but the company is evading these actions. Thus, the citizens requested a court ruling to recognize that individual contracts for electricity distribution had been effectively concluded with each of them, and to oblige JSC "DTEK Odessa Electric Networks" to provide written texts of such contracts. DTEK did not acknowledge the lawsuit, citing a lack of evidence for a violated right.

Case Review

The court established that JSC "DTEK Odessa Electric Networks" has been the operator of the electricity distribution system (ODS) in the city of Odessa and the Odessa region since January 1, 2019. This is confirmed by the electricity distribution license issued in accordance with the NKREKU resolution dated November 6, 2018, No. 1345. The man and woman are co-owners of apartments. Their ownership rights to the apartments are confirmed by an extract from the State Register of Rights. At the disputed address, the co-owners of the apartment building formed the HOA "OYSTRAHA 19". In compliance with the law and the charter, on August 31, 2021, the HOA entered into a contract with JSC "DTEK Odessa Electric Networks" for the provision of electricity distribution services No. 272100. The contract is valid and is being executed by the parties. Electricity is indeed provided to the citizens at the disputed address.

"The plaintiffs did not contact the defendant regarding the conclusion of an individual contract and did not comply with the specific conditions set by the Code for amending or terminating the existing contract with the HOA. The defendant's refusal to perform the disputed actions is absent. The specific conditions of the charter established by the co-owners of the disputed building, according to which the HOA has the right to limit the use of common household electricity networks in case of a co-owner's debt exceeding 30 days, are not covered by the claim and do not indicate a violation of the plaintiffs' rights by the defendant. There are no actions indicating a violation of the plaintiffs' rights by the existing contract between the HOA and JSC "DTEK Odessa Electric Networks" for the provision of electricity distribution services No. 272100. The procedure for concluding individual contracts has been repeatedly explained to the members of the HOA (letters from JSC "DTEK Odessa Electric Networks"). The plaintiffs have been informed with the relevant letters. Thus, JSC "DTEK Odessa Electric Networks" has determined that the conclusion of the disputed contracts is possible under the condition of: the development by the property owners of internal electricity supply projects with a breakdown of the permitted capacity for household needs of the buildings and for each apartment within the total capacity permitted by the technical conditions for connection; the implementation of project solutions and verification by the defendant of the installed electrical network schemes; the conclusion of contracts with property owners for the provision of services for the distribution of electrical energy used for technical purposes of the apartment building; the submission by the owners of residential and non-residential premises of requests for the conclusion of distribution contracts according to the list of documents and these documents defined by PREE," the case states.

What did the court decide?

The court denied the applicants' request to satisfy the lawsuit. The mandatory conditions preceding the conclusion of contracts were not met by them.

"The court agrees with the defendant's arguments that the norms of current legislation regarding the disputed legal relationships indicate that the conclusion of contracts for the distribution (transfer) and supply of electricity, as well as the acquisition of the status of 'individual electricity consumer' in the context of legal relationships for receiving electricity services under the corresponding contract concluded directly with the plaintiff, is preceded by actions by the consumer that demonstrate their desire to conclude the respective contract, taking into account the requirements set forth by law. The mandatory conditions preceding the conclusion of contracts were not complied with by the plaintiffs. Given the above, the claim was not proven by the plaintiffs during the consideration of the case, and the violated right was not established," the court emphasized.