1. The subject matter of the dispute is the recognition of the notary’s writ of execution as not subject to enforcement, and the recognition of electronic auctions, the protocol of their conduct, the private enforcement officer’s act on the sale of property, the certificate of acquisition of real estate from auctions, the decision on state registration of rights as invalid, as well as the recovery of property from someone else’s illegal possession.
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which overturned the decision of the court of first instance regarding the recognition of electronic auctions as invalid and the recovery of property, based on the fact that at the time of the auction, the notary’s writ of execution was valid, and the plaintiff did not prove any violations of the auction procedure or the illegality of the enforcement officer’s actions. The appellate court noted that the transaction for the sale of property at auction is independent, and separate legal grounds are required to признать its invalidity. The court also took into account that the defendant is a bona fide purchaser, and the property cannot be recovered from her, referring to the provisions of Article 388 of the Civil Code of Ukraine and the practice of the Supreme Court. In addition, the Supreme Court noted that the plaintiff’s rights can be protected by compensation for damages caused by the illegal writ of execution. The Supreme Court departed from previous conclusions regarding the invalidity of auctions conducted on the basis of a writ of execution that was subsequently признать as not subject to enforcement, stating that the existence of grounds for признать a transaction invalid should be established by the court at the time of its commission.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
