1. The subject matter of the dispute is the invalidation of a transaction for the alienation of a share in the authorized capital of a company, which, in the plaintiff’s opinion, was concluded by the debtor with the intent to evade the enforcement of court decisions regarding the recovery of debt.
2. The court proceeded from the premise that the key criterion for determining jurisdiction is the subject matter of the dispute, rather than solely the composition of the parties. Since the dispute pertains specifically to a transaction involving corporate rights (a share in the authorized capital), it falls under the scope of Clause 4, Part 1, Article 20 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine. The court emphasized that the nature of the legal relations from which the dispute arose is commercial, regardless of the fact that the parties to the agreement are natural persons. The only exceptions to this rule are family and inheritance legal relations, to which this case does not pertain. The court noted that the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, in its resolution dated June 1, 2021, in case No. 910/2388/20, departed from previous conclusions regarding the jurisdiction of such disputes by civil courts, confirming the exclusive competence of commercial courts in cases concerning the invalidation of agreements for the alienation of shares in authorized capital. Thus, the courts of lower instances correctly refused to open proceedings under civil procedure.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, confirming that this dispute must be heard exclusively under commercial procedure.
