1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of UAH 400,000 from an individual as security for the fulfillment of obligations under a suretyship agreement in a bankruptcy case.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decision of the appellate court to secure the claim by imposing an arrest on the defendant’s property within the amount of the claim, reasoning that the execution of the court decision directly depends on the availability of funds to the defendant, and his income is significantly less than the amount of the debt, and the defendant did not provide evidence of the existence of other property besides the land plot and the house. The court noted that the arrest of property does not restrict the rights of possession and use, but only the right of disposal, and this is an additional guarantee of the execution of the court decision. The court also indicated that the defendant did not prove the non-proportionality of the measures to secure the claim, and the defendant’s powers as the owner of the property indicate the possibility of its alienation at any time, which may make it impossible to execute the court decision.
3. The court ruled to leave the cassation appeal without satisfaction, and the decision of the appellate court unchanged.
The court indicated that it departs from previous conclusions regarding the impossibility of imposing an arrest on the (immovable) property of the defendant in order to secure a claim for the recovery of funds, which were stated in a number of decisions of the Supreme Court.
