This conclusion was made by the Commercial Court of Cassation of the Supreme Court.

THE ESSENCE OF THE DISPUTE

The participant of the LLC appealed to the commercial court with a claim, which asked, among other things, to exclude from the members of the company two other participants. She justified her claim by saying that the relevant participants "commit illegal actions, obstruct the activities of the Company by their actions and systematically fail to fulfill their obligations to the Company."

JUDICIAL POSITION
The Commercial Court, upheld by the decision of the Commercial Court of Appeal, dismissed the claim in its entirety. The Supreme Court of Cassation, leaving unchanged the decisions of the courts of previous instances, emphasized the following:

From the content of Articles 52, 59, 64 of the Law of Ukraine "On Companies", as well as Articles 15, 30 of the Law of Ukraine "On Limited and Additional Liability Companies" it is seen that the decision to exclude a participant from a business association is within the competence of the general meeting members of the company, not the court.

The issue of exclusion of a participant from the company's membership belongs to the issues of the company's activity, the decision of which in court will be regarded as court interference in the company's economic activity, in particular in the exclusive competence of the general meeting of participants. Art. 6 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, on the prohibition of illegal interference of public authorities and local governments, their officials in economic relations.

The panel of judges also noted that the content of Art. 18 of the Law of Ukraine "On Limited and Additional Liability Companies" does not provide such type of corporate liability for non-performance (improper performance) by a participant of its obligation to make an additional contribution to the authorized capital of the company as exclusion of a participant from the company. Instead, this article determines which decisions should be made by the general meeting of participants of the company after the expiration of the period for making additional contributions. The law refers to the exclusive competence of the general meeting to resolve issues related to the payment / non-payment of an additional contribution by a member of the company.

The full text of the resolution of the Supreme Court of Cassation of June 18, 2020 in case №922 / 1393/19 can be found at a link.