A court has annulled a contract for the purchase of coal for a high school in the Odesa region

The court invalidated a contract worth 430,000 hryvnias for the supply of coal to the Slobidsky Lyceum in the Podilsky District of the Odesa Region. Consequently, the contractor must return the money received to the school, and the school must return the delivered fuel or compensate for its cost.

This is stated in a ruling by the Southwestern Commercial Court of Appeals.

The legal dispute arose over a tender held by the Slobidsky Lyceum, a flagship educational institution, in August 2025. At that time, the most economically advantageous bid was submitted by “Oblypivo” Trading Fuel Company LLC. The company was prepared to supply fuel for 266,814 hryvnias. However, the lyceum’s tender committee rejected this bid due to a technical deficiency in the bank guarantee, which lacked a specific reference to regulatory acts.

Instead, “Inkom Intergroup” LLC was declared the winner of the procurement. A contract worth 430,050 hryvnias was signed with this company. The contractor managed to ship the coal, and the school paid for the delivery in full.

Disagreeing with the disqualification, the company “Oblpalyvo” filed a lawsuit. The case went through several levels of court. In December 2025, the Commercial Court of Odesa Oblast ruled in favor of the plaintiff and declared the contract invalid. Subsequently, the appellate court overturned this decision, stating that the agreement had already been fulfilled. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and remanded the case for a new trial.

During the retrial, the panel of judges concluded that the Slobidsky Lyceum had been overly formalistic and had violated the basic principles of public procurement—maximum economy and proportionality. A minor inaccuracy in the bank guarantee did not affect its substance, and the rejection of the lower-priced bid resulted in an overpayment of more than 163,000 hryvnias.

The court rejected the arguments of the Lyceum and the supplier that the coal had already been used and could not be returned. It took into account the fact that the lawsuit was filed before the contract had been fulfilled.

Юлія Калабайда