1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of the marriage contract and donation agreements as invalid, as well as the determination of the debtor’s share in the joint property of the spouses, initiated by a private enforcement officer in the interests of the debtor.
2. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court (GCSCS) considered the issue of whether an enforcement officer has the authority to apply to the court in the interests of the participants in enforcement proceedings. The GCSCS concluded that the enforcement officer has the right to apply to the court with a demand to determine the debtor’s share in the joint property if a dispute arises between the co-owners regarding the ownership of this property, but in such a case, the enforcement officer applies to the court in the interests of the creditor, not the debtor. The GCSCS noted that if the claim is filed in the interests of the debtor, the court returns the statement of claim or leaves it without consideration. The court also departed from the previous conclusion regarding the consequences of detecting a dispute about the law during the consideration of the enforcement officer’s submission, stating that in such a case, the court refuses to satisfy the submission, and does not leave it without consideration. In addition, the GCSCS departed from the conclusion of the joint chamber of the Cassation Administrative Court regarding the impossibility of cassation appeal of rulings of the court of first instance after their cancellation by the appellate court.
3. The court decided to leave the cassation appeal of the private enforcement officer without satisfaction, and to satisfy the cassation appeal of PERSON_1, canceling the ruling of the appellate court and upholding the ruling of the court of first instance.
**** The court states in the decision that it departs from the previous position, which was in other decisions of the Supreme Court.
