The Kherson Court of Appeal left unchanged the decision of the Kherson City Court of the Kherson region in the case of the claim of JSC “Khersonskaya Teploelektrotsentraly” for the collection of debt for centralized heating services.
The plaintiff requested to collect from the defendants more than 41 thousand UAH of debt for the period from January 1998 to November 2020. The court of first instance partially satisfied the claim, applying the consequences of the expiration of the statute of limitations, and collected the debt only for the period from December 1, 2017 to November 30, 2020 – 21,122.94 UAH, proportionally from each co-owner of the apartment.
In the appeal, the representative of one of the defendants requested to cancel the decision and refuse to satisfy the claim in full. In particular, the complainant noted that the defendant has not lived in the disputed apartment since 2016, was deregistered at this address, and therefore did not actually consume the heating service.
The Court of Appeal rejected these arguments. The Court proceeded from the fact that the defendants are co-owners of the apartment under the right of private joint joint ownership, and therefore, as property owners, they are obliged to participate in its maintenance and payment for the relevant utilities. The presence of another place of registration does not exempt the co-owner from the obligation to maintain his share in the real estate.
When resolving the dispute, the Court of Appeal referred to the provisions of the Civil Code of Ukraine, in particular, Part 1 of Article 509 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, according to which an obligation is a legal relationship in which the debtor is obliged to perform a certain action in favor of the creditor, in particular, to pay funds. The court also took into account the provisions of Part 1 of Article 901 and Part 1 of Article 903 of the Civil Code of Ukraine regarding the contract for the provision of services and the obligation of the customer to pay for the service provided to him.
In addition, the court of appeal applied the provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On Housing and Communal Services”. In particular, the court noted that in accordance with Part 1 of Article 12 of this Law, housing and communal services are provided exclusively on a contractual basis, and in accordance with Part 1 of Article 9, the consumer pays for the consumed housing and communal services monthly, unless a different procedure and terms are specified in the contract. The court also referred to Clause 5 of Part 2 of Article 7 of the Law, which imposes on an individual consumer the obligation to pay for the provided housing and communal services at the established tariffs, and to Part 2 of Article 8 of the Law regarding the obligation of the utility service provider to prepare and conclude contracts with the consumer.
Separately, the Court of Appeal drew attention to the fact that the cost of a heating service depends not on the number of people actually living in the apartment, but on the area of the dwelling. Therefore, the mere fact that the co-owner does not live in the apartment is not a basis for exempting him from paying the relevant part of the cost of the service.
This approach is consistent with the legal position of the Supreme Court, set out in the resolution of April 15, 2021 in case No. 638/5001/17, which was also referred to by the appellant. In this case, the Supreme Court noted that services, the cost of which does not depend on the number of people using them, but on the area of the apartment, in particular heating, are subject to payment by the co-owner in accordance with his participation in the right of ownership.
The Court of Appeal also agreed with the application by the court of first instance of Part 4 of Article 267 of the Civil Code of Ukraine regarding the consequences of the expiration of the limitation period. Since the plaintiff applied to the court on December 1, 2020, the claims for debt collection for the period from January 1998 to November 30, 2017 were filed outside the three-year limitation period. Therefore, in this part, the claim was reasonably refused.
Having checked the decision of the court of first instance within the arguments of the appeal, the court of appeal concluded that it was adopted in compliance with the norms of substantive and procedural law. By the resolution of the Kherson Court of Appeal dated May 11, 2026, the decision of the Kherson City Court of the Kherson region dated February 2, 2026 was left unchanged.
