1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the private enforcement officer regarding the initiation of enforcement proceedings for the compulsory recovery of debt from JSC “Kharkivgaz” in favor of LLC “Gas Transportation System Operator of Ukraine”.
2. The court of cassation instance dismissed the cassation appeal of JSC “Kharkivgaz”, upholding the decisions of the courts of previous instances. The court noted that the transfer of corporate rights of the company to the management of ARMA does not change the form of ownership, and therefore, the restrictions on the execution of decisions by private enforcement officers regarding companies where the state owns more than 25% of the authorized capital do not apply. The court also rejected the arguments regarding the violation of the rules of territorial jurisdiction, since the private enforcement officer has the right to initiate enforcement proceedings at the location of the debtor’s property, in particular, funds in bank accounts. The court took into account that the claimant provided evidence of the debtor’s accounts in banks located in Kyiv, which is a sufficient basis for initiating enforcement proceedings by a private enforcement officer registered in Kyiv. The Court noted that it had deviated from the conclusions set out in the decision of the Supreme Court of December 19, 2024, in case No. 903/62/23, that the content of asset management is identical to the content of ownership rights.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of JSC “Kharkivgaz”, and the decisions of the previous courts remained unchanged.
