1. The subject of the dispute is the complaint of PERSON_1 against the actions of a private enforcement officer regarding the transfer of property (100% of the authorized capital of LLC) to the claimant, which, according to the complainant, no longer belonged to him at the time of the enforcement action.
2. The court, refusing to satisfy the complaint, proceeded from the fact that at the time of the enforcement action (transfer of property to the claimant), according to the data of the Unified State Register of Legal Entities, Individual Entrepreneurs, the debtor (PERSON_1) was listed as the owner of a share in the authorized capital of LLC; the court noted that the state registration of the change in the composition of the company’s participants is important for third parties, since the information in the Unified State Register is reliable and can be used in a dispute with a third party; the court emphasized that the enforcement officer did not have other information at the time of the enforcement actions, and acted in accordance with the law; also, the court noted that the rights of a person who considers himself the owner of property that has been seized may be protected in the manner of claim proceedings (Article 59 of the Law “On Enforcement Proceedings”). The court rejected the complainant’s reference to the practice regarding state registration of property rights to real estate, since in this case the disputed legal relations are related to the registration of changes in the composition of the company’s participants in the Unified State Register.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.
