1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** Challenging the results of an auction for the sale of a debtor’s property, invalidating a certificate of title, and recovery of an apartment that was sold within the framework of bankruptcy proceedings, which were subsequently terminated as having been initiated without grounds.
2. **Court arguments:** The Supreme Court emphasized that the key factor for determining the jurisdiction of the dispute is the basis for the termination of the bankruptcy proceedings. The Court distinguished between situations where proceedings are closed due to the complete completion of the liquidation procedure (where the exclusive jurisdiction of the commercial court applies) and cases where proceedings are terminated due to the absence of legal grounds for their initiation from the very beginning. In this case, the bankruptcy was deemed unfounded; therefore, all procedural actions taken within the framework of these proceedings lost their legal force. The Supreme Court noted that closing the proceedings in a civil case in such a situation deprives a person of the right to effective judicial protection guaranteed by the Constitution and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights. The appellate court erroneously applied the practice of the Grand Chamber, which pertained to cases where bankruptcy had been duly completed, rather than recognized as illegal. Consequently, since the bankruptcy case “did not exist” from the point of view of the law, the property dispute must be considered under civil procedure. The Court effectively clarified the limits of applying the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, indicating that they are not universal for cases where bankruptcy proceedings were terminated due to the absence of grounds for their opening.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the appellate court to close the proceedings and remanded the case to the appellate court for continuation of consideration on the merits.
