Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer
Ваш AI помічникНовий чат
    Open chat icon

    Case No. 922/82/20 of 18/09/2025

    1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of electronic auctions as invalid, the certificate of ownership, the cancellation of decisions of state registrars, and the recovery of property from someone else’s illegal possession.

    2. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, stating that the claim to recognize the auctions as invalid is improper and ineffective, since the property was sold in the course of execution of court decisions, and the legislator in Part 2 of Article 388 of the Civil Code of Ukraine provided for a “vindication immunity” for bona fide purchasers in such cases. The court also noted that the recognition of the certificate of acquisition of property from auctions as invalid and the cancellation of decisions of the state registrar is not an effective way to protect rights, since these documents do not cause the transfer of ownership. The Supreme Court emphasized that the recovery of property is possible only if the bad faith of the acquirer is proven, and in this case, the courts of previous instances reasonably established the good faith of the acquirers. The court took into account that public auctions within the framework of enforcement proceedings should be the safest way to acquire property, and the buyer should not be responsible for violations committed by other persons within the framework of procedures specifically designed to prevent fraud. The Court departed from the conclusion regarding the application of Articles 4, 45 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine that the state represented by the Ministry is an improper plaintiff in the claim for the recovery of property that belonged to the Ukrainian State Research Institute “Ukrvodgeo” on the right of economic management, stating that the state, as the owner of the property, has the right to protect its right of ownership in case of its violation.

    3. The court ruled to leave the cassation appeals of the prosecutor and the Ministry unsatisfied, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances – unchanged.

    Full text by link

    E-mail
    Password
    Confirm Password
    Lexcovery
    Privacy Overview

    This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.