The subject of the dispute was the appeal against the inaction of a private enforcement officer regarding the non-suspension of enforcement proceedings for the compulsory recovery of debt from JSC “Vinnytsiagaz” in favor of LLC “Gas Transmission System Operator of Ukraine”.
The court of cassation overturned the decisions of the previous instances, pointing out the erroneousness of their conclusions. The court noted that the appellate court incorrectly applied the norms of substantive law, believing that the transfer of assets of JSC “Vinnytsiagaz” to the management of ARMA makes it impossible to enforce court decisions regarding this company. The Supreme Court emphasized that the management of assets by ARMA does not change the form of ownership, and therefore, is not an obstacle to enforcement proceedings. In addition, the court of cassation indicated that the court of first instance incorrectly interpreted the provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On Measures Aimed at Overcoming Crisis Phenomena and Ensuring Financial Stability in the Natural Gas Market”, since the enforcement officer is obliged to suspend enforcement proceedings if the debtor is included in the relevant register, and the amount of recovery is subject to settlement in accordance with this law, regardless of the period of debt occurrence. **:** The court indicated that it departed from the conclusions stated in the постанові (resolution) of the Supreme Court dated December 19, 2024, in case No. 903/62/23, that the content of asset management is identical to the content of ownership right.
The Supreme Court satisfied the complaint of JSC “Vinnytsiagaz”, recognized the inaction of the private enforcement officer as unlawful, and obliged him to suspend enforcement actions.
