1. **Subject of the dispute:** Invalidation of the results of an auction for the sale of a bankrupt’s property and the legal transaction concluded as a result thereof, due to a violation of the procedure for forming the lot, into which engineering networks, being an accessory to mortgaged real estate, were included without the consent of the secured creditor.
2. **Main arguments of the Court:**
– The Court established that engineering networks, which are an integral part (accessory) of the real estate under mortgage to JSC “Ukreximbank”, were unlawfully included in the lot without obtaining the mortgagee’s consent.
– It was confirmed that the alienation of these networks separately from the real estate leads to the depreciation of the mortgage object and deprives it of the functional characteristics necessary for operation.
– The Court identified numerous violations of the auction preparation procedure: use of obscure abbreviations in the property description, absence of technical parameters and photographs, and the inclusion of inaccurate information regarding the absence of encumbrances.
– **Legal Position:** The Supreme Court noted that it is departing from its previous position (set forth in the resolution of July 6, 2022, in case No. 914/2618/16) regarding the inefficiency of claims for invalidation of auction results and a purchase and sale agreement.
– Referring to the new legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of February 13, 2024 (case No. 910/2592/19), the Court confirmed that seeking the invalidation of auction results and the resulting purchase and sale agreement is a proper and effective method of protecting rights in such legal relations.
– The Court rejected the appellant’s arguments regarding the “improper” status of the arbitration manager as a defendant, noting that this procedural issue did not affect the correctness of the dispute’s resolution on the merits, and that overturning the decision on formal grounds would be a manifestation of “legal purism.”
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court left the cassation appeal unsatisfied and the decisions of the lower courts, which had granted the claim, unchanged.
