1. The subject of the dispute is the complaint of PERSON_1 against the inaction of the Ingulskyi Department of the State Executive Service regarding the failure to remove the seizure of her real estate.
2. The court of cassation upheld the appellate court’s ruling, which overturned the decision of the court of first instance to grant PERSON_1’s complaint, based on the fact that the return of the writ of execution to the claimant on the grounds that the debtor has no property that can be levied upon is not an unconditional ground for the removal of the seizure from the debtor’s property. The court took into account that the consequences of the completion of enforcement proceedings, in particular the removal of the seizure from property, apply only in the event of the termination of enforcement proceedings or the return of the writ of execution to the court that issued it. The court also noted that the claimant has the right to re-present the writ of execution for enforcement if the circumstances that led to its return cease to exist. The Court noted that it departs from the conclusions of the Cassation Administrative Court as part of the Supreme Court, made in the ruling of May 26, 2020 in case No. 815/7269/15, and applies the legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, set forth in the ruling of May 14, 2025 in case No. 2/1522/11652/11 (proceedings No. 14-137cs24).
3. The Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the cassation appeal and to uphold the appellate court’s ruling.
