**Case No. 320/42941/23 dated 05/06/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the Office of the State Treasury Service of Ukraine regarding the refusal to execute the private enforcement officer’s order on the seizure of the debtor’s funds and the payment instruction for the forced debiting of funds.
2. The Supreme Court found that LLC “ECO-BUD-TRADE” was not involved in the case, although the decision of the court of first instance directly concerned its rights and interests, as it obliged the Treasury Office to debit funds from the account of LLC “ECO-BUD-TRADE”. The court of first instance found that the actions of the private enforcement officer regarding the seizure of the debtor’s funds were lawful, and the funds on the account of LLC “ECO-BUD-TRADE” are subject to recovery. The appellate court mistakenly believed that the decision did not affect the rights of LLC “ECO-BUD-TRADE”, as the dispute concerns the competence of the Treasury authority. The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to access to court is not absolute, but restrictions should not undermine the very essence of this right, and the appellate court violated the right of LLC “ECO-BUD-TRADE” to appeal. Considering that the case is sent for a new trial to the court of first instance, which must decide on the involvement of LLC “ECO-BUD-TRADE” in the case, there is no need to send the case to the court of appeal for further consideration.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s ruling on the closure of appellate proceedings, but did not send the case for a new trial to the court of appeal.
**Case No. 320/2839/24 dated 05/06/2025**
1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the inaction of the State Tax Service of Ukraine regarding the non-registration of the right of state ownership to an unfinished construction object and the failure to take measures for its accounting, storage, and disposal.
2. The court of cassation considered the cassation appeal of the prosecutor’s office against the decisions of the previous instance courts, which returned the statement of claim to the prosecutor due to the failure to remedy deficiencies, in particular, regarding the determination of the proper defendant and the missed deadline for applying to the court. The Supreme Court agreed with the conclusion of the previous instance courts regarding the prosecutor’s missed deadline for applying to the court, as the prosecutor was aware of the violation of the state’s rights back in 2022, and only applied to the court in 2023. At the same time, the Supreme Court disagreed that indicating an improper defendant is grounds for returning the statement of claim, as determining the proper participants in the case is the task of the court during the consideration of the case. The court emphasized that the CAS of Ukraine does not empower the court, when deciding on the opening of proceedings in the case, to assess the appropriateness of the participants in the case.
3. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, amending the reasoning part of the decisions of the previous instance courts, but leaving them unchanged in other parts.
