The Court also bases its conclusion on the fact

[roseline371274]

If we turn to the historical interpretation of the norm applied by the Court of Cassation, we can see that until April 19, 2020, the disputed norm did not contain a condition that an increase in price cannot occur more than once every 90 days, except for the purchase of gasoline, diesel fuel, gas, and electricity.

That is, applying the interpretation provided by the Grand Chamber, it follows that for energy sellers, the above wording of the norm has not changed anything in practice, because as before, they are not limited in the timing of the price increase.

Further, that

"As can be seen from the explanatory note to the draft Law No. 114-IX, the purpose of its adoption was to improve the public procurement system, aimed at developing a competitive environment and fair competition in the procurement sector, as well as ensuring the implementation of Ukraine's international obligations in the field of public procurement, including combating "price dumping" when a special database participant in the procurement procedure offers a significantly lower price for the product in order to win, and then, through additional agreements, significantly increases the price of the product and, accordingly, reduces the volume of the procurement, thereby leveling the results of the public procurement."

With this goal in mind, it is obvious that the changes made by the legislator by Law No. 114-IX to the specified norm of paragraph 2 of part five of Article 41 of Law No. 922-VIII were not aimed at allowing participants in public procurement to use "price dumping" with a subsequent increase in the price per unit of goods by more than 10% of the price determined by the parties based on the results of the procurement procedure and when concluding a procurement contract."