1. **Subject of the dispute:** Declaration of invalidity of a non-residential premises purchase and sale agreement, concluded between two limited liability companies, as a fraudulent transaction executed for the purpose of evading the enforcement of a court judgment on the division of matrimonial property.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The Supreme Court emphasized that a transaction executed by a debtor to the detriment of creditors (fraudulent transaction) is invalid if it is intended to avoid the fulfillment of obligations or the execution of a court judgment.
– The Court established that the alienation of property took place between related parties (directors and founders of the companies) while a court ruling on the securing of a claim was in effect, which indicates the bad faith conduct of the parties.
– It is a significant conclusion that for such an agreement to be declared invalid, the fact of the absence of registration of an attachment in the State Register of Proprietary Rights at the time of the conclusion of the agreement is not decisive, provided the parties were aware of the existence of the court-ordered injunction.
– The Court noted that although the property belonged to the company, rather than directly to the spouses, such actions directly resulted in a reduction of assets, which rendered the actual division of property and the receipt of compensation by the spouse impossible.
– At the same time, the Court clarified that natural persons (the husband and his relative) are not proper defendants in a dispute regarding the invalidity of an agreement between legal entities; therefore, the claim against them is not subject to satisfaction.
– The Court emphasized that the right of ownership cannot be used as an instrument for the abuse of rights and the infliction of harm upon other persons.
– **Conclusion:** The Court departed from its previous position, confirming that a fraudulent transaction may be declared invalid regardless of whether the encumbrance was registered in the registry, provided that the parties were aware of the attachment, and it further clarified the criteria for qualifying such actions as an abuse of right.
3. **Court’s decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the courts of lower instances and rendered a new decision declaring the purchase and sale agreement invalid, while dismissing the claim against the natural persons as improper defendants.
