1. The subject of the dispute is the replacement of the claimant in the writ of execution based on the assignment of claim agreement (cession).
2. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court (GCSC) reviewed the case regarding the replacement of the claimant in the writ of execution based on the cession agreement concluded after the court decision on debt recovery. The courts of previous instances refused to satisfy the application for the replacement of the claimant, considering that the assignment of claim under a court decision by concluding a civil law agreement is not provided for by law. The GCSC did not agree with such conclusions, noting that in private legal relations everything that is not prohibited by law is permitted, and there is no norm that would prohibit the conclusion of such an agreement. The court emphasized that the fact of a court decision does not change the obligations between the parties, but only confirms its existence. Also, the GCSC emphasized the importance of the presumption of legality of the transaction, if the cession agreement is not declared invalid in the established procedure.
3. The court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
**Note:** The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court departed from the legal position stated in the ruling of the Supreme Court of Ukraine of August 19, 2014 in case No. 923/945/13, and in the rulings of the Supreme Court of July 10 and 11, 2018 in cases No. 922/3535/15 and No. 908/1490/17, regarding the impossibility of assigning the claimant’s claim under a court decision by concluding a civil law agreement.
