1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of a private enforcement officer regarding the legality of initiating enforcement proceedings for the compulsory execution of a court decision on the recovery of debt from a joint-stock company.
2. The court of cassation considered the cassation appeal of JSC “Gas Distribution System Operator “Kharkivgaz”, which challenged the actions of the private enforcement officer regarding the initiation of enforcement proceedings, arguing that the state’s share in the authorized capital of the company exceeds 25%, which, according to the law, excludes the possibility of compulsory execution of the decision by a private enforcement officer. The court found that although the corporate rights of the company were transferred to the management of the ARMA (Asset Recovery and Management Agency), this does not change the form of ownership and does not transform the assets into state property. The court noted that it departs from the previous conclusion on the identity of asset management and ownership, indicating that asset management by ARMA is not equivalent to ownership, but is of a temporary nature. The court also took into account that the provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings” do not contain restrictions on the compulsory execution of a decision in the case of temporary asset management without changing the form of ownership.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged, confirming the lawfulness of the actions of the private enforcement officer.
