1. The subject of the dispute is the complaint of the joint-stock company against the actions of the private enforcement officer regarding the opening of enforcement proceedings for the recovery of debt in favor of LLC “Gas Supply Company “Naftogaz of Ukraine”.
2. The court of cassation instance overturned the decision of the court of appeal, noting that the court of appeal incorrectly applied the norms of substantive law. The court of first instance rightfully refused to satisfy the debtor’s complaint, since the management of the debtor’s assets by ARMA does not change the form of ownership and is not a basis for prohibiting a private enforcement officer from enforcing a court decision. The Supreme Court emphasized that ARMA’s asset management is of a fixed-term and targeted nature, does not grant ARMA ownership of these assets, and therefore does not fall under the restrictions established for legal entities where the state’s share exceeds 25%. The Court noted that it departs from the conclusions stated in the Supreme Court’s decision of December 19, 2023, in case No. 903/62/23, that the content of asset management is identical to the content of ownership rights.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the court of appeal and upheld the ruling of the court of first instance, refusing to satisfy the complaint of the joint-stock company.
