1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of a private enforcement officer regarding the opening of enforcement proceedings, considering the restrictions established by law for private enforcement officers, in particular regarding the execution of decisions concerning legal entities in whose authorized capital the share of the state exceeds 25%, as well as regarding compliance with the rules of territorial jurisdiction.
2. The court of cassation instance dismissed the cassation appeal, upholding the decisions of the courts of previous instances. The court noted that the transfer of corporate rights to the management of ARMA does not change the form of ownership, and therefore, the restrictions provided for in paragraph 2 of Part 2 of Article 5 of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings” do not apply to private enforcement officers in such cases. The court departed from the previous conclusion that asset management is identical to ownership. Also, the court emphasized that a private enforcement officer has the right to open enforcement proceedings at the location of the debtor’s property, including funds in bank accounts, and the existence of such accounts in Kyiv is a sufficient basis for opening enforcement proceedings in this city. The court took into account that the claimant provided evidence of the debtor’s open accounts in banking institutions located in Kyiv.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
