1. The subject of the dispute is the complaint of JSC “Kharkivgaz” regarding the actions of a private enforcement agent concerning the initiation of enforcement proceedings for the compulsory recovery of court fees from JSC “Kharkivgaz” in favor of JSC “Ukrtransgaz.”
2. The courts of previous instances granted the complaint of JSC “Kharkivgaz,” based on the fact that the company has a state share in its authorized capital exceeding 25%, and therefore, the compulsory execution of decisions concerning it should be carried out by the state executive service, not a private enforcement agent; the courts also referred to the previous legal position of the Supreme Court, according to which the management of ARMA assets is identical to the right of ownership. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances, noting that the management of assets transferred to ARMA is not identical to the right of ownership, as the asset owner retains ownership, and management only restricts the realization of certain powers for the duration of the seizure. The court of cassation emphasized that the mere fact that a share in the authorized capital of the company is under ARMA management cannot be grounds for prohibiting a private enforcement agent from executing a court decision. The Supreme Court noted that it departs from the conclusions stated in the Supreme Court’s ruling of December 19, 2024, in case No. 903/62/23, according to which the content of asset management is identical to the content of the right of ownership.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and denied the satisfaction of the complaint of JSC “Kharkivgaz” against the actions of the private enforcement agent.
