1. The subject of the dispute is the complaint of JSC “Kharkivmiskgaz” against the actions of a private enforcement officer regarding the opening of enforcement proceedings and the imposition of attachments on property and funds, motivated by the illegality of the private enforcement officer’s actions and violation of the rules of jurisdiction.
2. The court of cassation quashed the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which satisfied the complaint of JSC “Kharkivmiskgaz”, pointing to the erroneousness of their conclusions regarding the impossibility of the private enforcement officer to enforce decisions regarding JSC “Kharkivmiskgaz” due to the management of the state’s share in the authorized capital of the company by the National Agency for Detection, Tracing and Management of Assets Derived from Corruption and Other Crimes (ARMA). The court noted that asset management by ARMA does not change the form of ownership, and therefore, is not an obstacle for a private enforcement officer. At the same time, the court of cassation pointed out that the courts of previous instances did not investigate all the arguments of the complaint of JSC “Kharkivmiskgaz”, in particular regarding the violation of the rules of the place of enforcement of the decision by the private enforcement officer, which is important for resolving the dispute. The court of cassation emphasized the need to assess all the arguments of the parties and examine all the evidence in their entirety to establish the actual circumstances of the case. The Court noted that it departs from the conclusions set forth in the decision of the Supreme Court of December 19, 2024 in case No. 903/62/23, that the content of asset management is identical to the content of ownership.
3. The Supreme Court quashed the decisions of the courts of previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance for a complete and comprehensive investigation of all the circumstances of the case.
