Fuel Vouchers Do Not Amount to Delivery Where the Buyer Cannot Obtain the Fuel
⚖️ Ukraine | Commercial Disputes | Supply Contracts | Advance Payment
Case Details
Case No.: 917/1661/25
Court: Supreme Court, Commercial Cassation Court
Decision Date: 4 August 2026
Case Category: Commercial Law
Subject Matter: Supply Contract / Recovery of Advance Payment
Sub-Subject: Fuel Vouchers / Non-Delivery of Goods / Public Procurement
Claimant: First Deputy Head of the Boryspil District Prosecutor’s Office, acting in the interests of the State represented by the Boryspil District State Administration
Defendant: Garant Oil Group LLC
Contract: Sale of Goods Agreement No. 20-12 dated 20 December 2023
Amount in Dispute: UAH 1,949,714
Goods: A-95 petrol and diesel fuel
Key Issue: Whether delivery of fuel vouchers constituted performance of the supplier’s obligation where the contract concerned fuel and the buyer was unable to exchange the vouchers for the fuel
Outcome: The Supreme Court upheld the recovery of UAH 1,949,714. It confirmed that the contractual goods were fuel, not the vouchers themselves, and that the buyer could recover the advance payment because the supplier had failed to make the paid fuel available. Вставлений текст
Background of the Dispute
Following a competitive public procurement procedure, the Boryspil District State Administration entered into a contract with Garant Oil Group LLC on 20 December 2023.
The contract concerned goods classified as “Petroleum and distillates” under DK 021:2015, code 09130000-9. The total contractual amount, taking into account a subsequent additional agreement, was UAH 1,949,714 including VAT. Вставлений текст
The supplier subsequently provided the purchaser with AVIAS-branded scratch cards for A-95 petrol and diesel fuel. The purchaser paid the full contractual price of UAH 1,949,714. Вставлений текст
The problem was that the purchaser could not actually obtain the fuel represented by those vouchers.
After attempts to obtain repayment were unsuccessful, the prosecutor brought proceedings in the interests of the State seeking recovery of the entire amount paid under the contract. Вставлений текст
What Was Actually Being Sold: Fuel or Fuel Vouchers?
This distinction became central to the dispute.
The supplier argued, in substance, that it had performed its contractual obligations by transferring the fuel vouchers to the purchaser.
The courts rejected that interpretation.
The contract identified the subject matter as petroleum and distillates. Although vouchers were transferred to the purchaser, the Supreme Court confirmed the lower courts’ conclusion that the contractual goods were the fuel itself, not the vouchers.
This distinction was decisive.
A fuel voucher represented the holder's right to obtain fuel at a filling station. It was therefore a mechanism through which the contractual goods could be obtained rather than the contractual goods themselves.
Consequently, transferring a voucher did not necessarily mean that the supplier had completed delivery.
Transfer of a Voucher Is Not Necessarily Delivery of the Goods
The Supreme Court approached the dispute through the ordinary rules governing sale and supply contracts.
Under Article 712 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, a supplier must transfer the agreed goods to the purchaser, while the purchaser must accept and pay for them.
The Court also referred to Article 664 of the Civil Code, which determines when a seller's obligation to transfer goods is regarded as having been performed. Вставлений текст
The courts found that Garant Oil Group had transferred scratch cards to the purchaser but had not ensured that the purchaser could actually receive the corresponding fuel.
The purchaser was unable to exercise the rights represented by the vouchers because the relevant fuel was unavailable at the filling station.
The Supreme Court therefore accepted the distinction between:
delivery of the voucher, on the one hand, and
delivery of the contractual goods represented by that voucher, on the other.
Where the contract requires delivery of fuel, merely issuing the instrument through which the fuel is supposed to be obtained does not necessarily discharge the supplier's obligation.
The Buyer Could Not Obtain the Paid Fuel
The lower courts established that the purchaser was unable to obtain the fuel for which it had already paid.
The Supreme Court specifically noted that the purchaser could not exercise its right to receive the paid fuel because the supplier had failed to ensure that the goods were available at the filling station. Вставлений текст
This meant that the contractual obligation remained unperformed.
The Court also rejected the supplier's argument concerning an alleged deadline for redemption of the vouchers.
The appellate court had found that the relevant contractual provision concerned a 365-day quality guarantee, rather than a deadline within which the purchaser was required to obtain the fuel.
That distinction was important because the guarantee period could not operate as a limitation on the purchaser's rights where the fuel itself had never actually been supplied. Вставлений текст
Recovery of Advance Payment Under Article 693 of the Civil Code
The dispute therefore engaged Article 693(2) of the Civil Code of Ukraine.
Where a seller receives advance payment but fails to transfer the goods within the required period, the purchaser may choose between two remedies:
requiring delivery of the goods; or
requiring repayment of the advance payment.
The Supreme Court referred to its earlier case law confirming this alternative structure of the purchaser's remedies. Вставлений текст Вставлений текст
In the present case, the courts had established non-performance by the supplier.
The purchaser was therefore entitled to seek repayment of the money already paid.
Why the Supplier's Previous Supreme Court Authorities Did Not Change the Result
Garant Oil Group relied on several earlier Supreme Court decisions, arguing that the lower courts had failed to apply the relevant legal principles consistently.
The Supreme Court rejected that argument.
One of the authorities relied upon by the supplier concerned a situation in which the courts had established that the seller had not breached the supply contract and that the parties' obligations remained in force.
In those circumstances, recovery of the advance payment under Article 693(2) was unavailable.
The factual position in the present case was materially different.
Here, the courts had expressly established that the supplier had failed to deliver the contractual goods. The purchaser possessed vouchers but could not obtain the fuel represented by them. Вставлений текст
The Supreme Court emphasised a broader point concerning precedent: different outcomes do not necessarily demonstrate inconsistent application of the law where those outcomes result from materially different factual circumstances. Вставлений текст
The Supreme Court's Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed Garant Oil Group's cassation appeal.
It upheld:
the judgment of the Commercial Court of Poltava Region dated 18 December 2025; and
the judgment of the Eastern Commercial Court of Appeal dated 9 March 2026.
Garant Oil Group was therefore required to repay UAH 1,949,714 to the Boryspil District State Administration. Вставлений текст
Why This Decision Matters
The decision has significance beyond fuel-supply contracts.
It illustrates an important principle of Ukrainian contract law: courts will examine whether the contractual goods or performance were actually provided, rather than relying solely on documents that purport to facilitate later performance.
This distinction can be particularly relevant to contracts involving:
fuel cards and fuel vouchers;
certificates or other instruments representing goods;
prepaid supply arrangements;
advance payments;
public procurement contracts;
goods collected or redeemed after payment; and
contractual mechanisms in which possession of a document precedes actual receipt of the underlying goods.
The commercial question is therefore not simply whether the supplier transferred a voucher, certificate or other document. The relevant question may be whether the purchaser was actually placed in a position to obtain the goods required by the contract.
Lions Lawyers’ Analysis
The practical significance of the decision lies in the distinction between evidence or a mechanism for obtaining contractual performance and performance itself.
Businesses operating in Ukraine should not assume that issuing a voucher, certificate, token, warehouse document or similar instrument automatically constitutes delivery where the underlying contract requires delivery of particular goods.
The contractual wording remains critical.
In this case, the contract identified petroleum products as the subject matter. That allowed the courts to distinguish the fuel from the vouchers through which the purchaser was expected to obtain it.
The decision is therefore particularly relevant when drafting supply arrangements involving deferred collection or redemption mechanisms. Contracts should clearly identify:
what constitutes the contractual goods;
when delivery legally occurs;
whether transfer of a voucher or other document constitutes delivery;
where and how the underlying goods must be made available;
any redemption period;
the consequences of the goods being unavailable; and
the purchaser's rights to repayment where delivery ultimately does not occur.
For foreign companies contracting with Ukrainian suppliers, this is also a useful reminder that Ukrainian courts will examine the substance of contractual performance and the precise allocation of obligations under the agreement.
Lions Lawyers advises Ukrainian and international clients on commercial contracts and disputes in Ukraine, including supply agreements, advance-payment recovery, public procurement disputes, non-performance, termination, damages and cross-border commercial litigation. We provide full-service representation as well as standalone legal opinions, enabling clients to assess contractual risks, existing litigation strategies and available remedies under Ukrainian law.
GET IN TOUCH FOR A FREE 1-HOUR INITIAL CONSULTATION.