Here is a detailed analysis of this court decision, prepared for you:
1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** Declaration of invalidity of a residential house purchase and sale agreement as a fraudulent transaction executed by the debtor to the detriment of a creditor for the purpose of avoiding foreclosure on property.
2. **Arguments of the Court:**
– The Supreme Court emphasized that private law instruments cannot be used to avoid the enforcement of a court judgment, and the actions of the parties must be assessed through the prism of good faith and the prohibition of abuse of rights (Articles 3, 13 of the Civil Code of Ukraine).
– The Court established that the agreement was concluded on the day following the court’s denial of the debtor’s request to review the default judgment on debt collection, which indicates obvious bad faith.
– A significant factor was the connection between the parties: the purchaser of the house was the debtor’s attorney, who directly participated in the court hearing and was aware of the existence of the debt.
– The Court critically assessed the price of the agreement (UAH 50,000), which was clearly non-market, and rejected the argument that the absence of a lien on the property at the time of sale legalizes such a transaction.
– The Supreme Court emphasized that the fraudulent nature of a transaction does not depend on whether the parties are relatives, as “connectedness” can take other forms, in particular, the professional relationship between a client and an attorney.
– The Court noted that the purpose of non-bankruptcy challenging is to return the property to the debtor in order to satisfy the creditor’s claims; therefore, restoration of the position that existed prior to the violation is an appropriate method of legal protection.
– **Conclusion:** In this resolution, the Court confirmed and specified the position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of February 4, 2026 (Case No. 910/6654/24) regarding the right of a creditor to challenge the debtor’s transactions based on the general principles of civil legislation, departing from previously existing narrower approaches to this issue.
3. **Court Judgment:** The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the lower courts and rendered a new judgment granting the claim, declaring the purchase and sale agreement invalid.
