The homeowner paid DTEK for connection to the power grid three years ago, but the work remains unfinished. Here’s the court's decision on the matter.

A woman paid for the connection of her home's electrical installations to the distribution network. However, DTEK is evading its obligations as stipulated in the contract, even though it was signed over 3 years ago. This was stated in the decision of the Kyiv-Sviatoshyn District Court of Kyiv Oblast, published on January 7, 2025.

In 2020, the woman entered into a contract for standard connection to the distribution network, under which DTEK, for a fee, was to provide services for connecting her home's electrical installations to the distribution network. By the time she filed a lawsuit, the deadlines established by law for providing the relevant services had long expired, yet her home had still not been connected. She and her representative repeatedly contacted the company for clarifications. Thus, DTEK is shirking its contractual duties, constantly citing various reasons for the non-fulfillment of the contract, despite it being signed more than 3 years ago, which significantly exceeds the legally allotted 45 days for standard connection services to the distribution network. Currently, DTEK claims that it needs to coordinate work with the SO "Kalyna," justifying this by stating that part of the planned power lines will pass through the society's territory, yet the company has provided no evidence, and the evidence it has collected contradicts this claim.

DTEK filed a counterclaim in court, contesting the grounds presented by the woman in her initial lawsuit. For the contract to be concluded, the following documents were received via email by the Public Joint Stock Company "DTEK Kyiv Regional Electric Networks": an application for the connection of an electrical installation of a specified capacity dated July 2, 2020, with attachments: a copy of the passport on 3 sheets; a copy of the extract from the state register of property rights regarding the registration of ownership dated June 10, 2020; an extract from the topographic-geodetic plan at a scale of 1:2000; a situational plan at a scale of 1:5000. The application for the connection of an electrical installation of a specified capacity dated July 2, 2020, states: the name of the facility, the location of the facility, its functional purpose, and the maximum calculated (forecasted) load considering the existing permitted (connected) capacity of 10 kW. On July 16, 2020, the parties signed contract No. K-12-20-0600 for standard connection to the distribution network. For a long time, the contractor performed actions to fulfill the terms of the contract and obtain the necessary approvals, and only on July 17, 2023, did they receive a refusal from SO "Kalyna" regarding the placement of the relevant energy facilities. The local government authority approved the route for the placement of project power supply networks, however, the management of SO "Kalyna" repeatedly did not allow DTEK representatives to carry out work on the installation of electrical networks necessary for providing the applicant with connection services. There are no other options for laying external power supply networks to her land plot, making it impossible for DTEK to fulfill its contractual obligations. Therefore, the company is requesting the termination of contract No. K-12-20-0600 for standard connection to the distribution network dated July 16, 2020.

What was the court's decision?

The court ruled in favor of the woman's claim. The Public Joint Stock Company "DTEK Kyiv Regional Electric Networks" was ordered to connect the electrical installations of the residential house and provide their connection to the distribution network, delivering the service for standard connection. The counterclaim of the Public Joint Stock Company "DTEK Kyiv Regional Electric Networks" against the citizen for the termination of the contract for standard connection to the distribution network was dismissed.

"Considering the full execution by the plaintiff in the counterclaim of the terms of contract No. K-12-20-0600, and the non-fulfillment of its terms by the defendant, as well as the absence of significant circumstances that would prevent the defendant from fulfilling the contract, the court concludes that there are grounds for granting the initial claim in full and denying the counterclaim," the court emphasized.