1. The subject of the dispute is the complaint of a joint-stock company against the actions of a private enforcement officer regarding the seizure of the debtor’s property within the framework of enforcement proceedings.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the court of appeal, noting that the court of appeal mistakenly applied the norms of substantive law, believing that the transfer of the debtor’s corporate rights to the management of ARMA makes it impossible for the private enforcement officer to enforce the decision. The court of cassation emphasized that the management of assets by ARMA is not identical to the right of ownership, and therefore does not change the status of the debtor as a legal entity, the share of the state in the authorized capital of which does not exceed 25%. The court also referred to the legal position of the Joint Chamber of the Commercial Cassation Court, which departed from previous conclusions regarding the identity of asset management and ownership rights. The court of cassation pointed out that the court of appeal incorrectly applied the norms of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings”, which do not contain restrictions on the enforcement of decisions in case of temporary asset management without changing the form of ownership.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the court of appeal and upheld the ruling of the court of first instance, which denied the satisfaction of the complaint.
**** The court states in the decision that it deviates from the previous position that was in other decisions of the Supreme Court.
