1. The subject of the dispute is the reclamation by the prosecutor’s office, in the interests of the territorial community, of non-residential premises from “Gudini-M” LLC, which acquired them at an electronic auction.
2. The Supreme Court disagreed with the decisions of the previous instances, which refused to satisfy the claim of the prosecutor’s office, motivating this by the fact that the courts did not properly investigate the circumstances of the initial disposal of the property from the ownership of the territorial community, and focused only on the fact of the acquisition of the property by “Gudini-M” LLC at electronic auctions. The court noted that the courts had to investigate the legality of the first alienation of the property, which took place on the basis of a court decision that was subsequently cancelled. Also, the courts did not establish whether the return of the property to the territorial community corresponds to public interests and whether it places an excessive burden on “Gudini-M” LLC, as a bona fide acquirer. The court emphasized that it is necessary to take into account the balance of interests of the community and the acquirer, as well as the possibility of compensation for damages to “Gudini-M” LLC by previous owners. The Court pointed out that the courts of previous instances mistakenly applied the legal conclusions set out in the постанові (resolution/ruling) of the Supreme Court in the case where public auctions were the first transaction of alienation of property, and not the last, as in this case.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance to clarify all the circumstances of the case.
