1. The subject of the dispute is the complaint of PERSON_1 against the inaction of the state enforcement officer regarding the refusal to remove the arrest from his real estate, imposed within the framework of enforcement proceedings that were completed.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances, which refused to satisfy the complaint, since the return of the writ of execution to the creditor or its referral to another body of the State Enforcement Service is not an unconditional basis for the removal of the arrest from the debtor’s property. The court noted that the arrest is the initial stage of recovery of property, and its removal is associated with certain circumstances, in particular, the termination of enforcement proceedings or the return of the writ of execution to the court. The court also took into account that the debtor did not provide evidence of full execution of the court decision, on the basis of which the writs of execution were issued. The court of cassation emphasized that the re-evaluation of evidence is not within its powers. The court departed from the conclusions of the Cassation Administrative Court as part of the Supreme Court, made in the decision of May 26, 2020 in case No. 815/7269/15, and applied the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in the decision of May 14, 2025 in case No. 2/1522/11652/11 (proceedings No. 14-137cs24), which distinguishes between the consequences of the termination of enforcement proceedings and the return of the writ of execution to the creditor.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of PERSON_1, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances remained unchanged.
