1. The subject of the dispute is the invalidation of a sale and purchase agreement for non-residential premises, concluded between the debtor and an individual, as a fraudulent transaction, and the recovery of such property for the benefit of the debtor.
2. The court proceeded from the premise that the transaction was concluded to the detriment of the creditors’ interests, as the alienation of the property took place at an undervalued price in favor of a person who is a relative of one of the founders and the initiating creditor of the debtor. An important argument was that the agreement was concluded during a period when the debtor had outstanding obligations, which indicates a deliberate deterioration of the debtor’s financial condition to avoid settlement. The court confirmed the right of a company participant (with a 50% share) to file such a lawsuit, as the liquidator in the bankruptcy case failed to take appropriate measures to recover the assets. The court also dismissed arguments regarding the identity of the cases, noting that the liquidator’s previous lawsuit was based on different grounds (excess of authority by the director) and involved different parties. The Supreme Court emphasized the priority of the principle of good faith and the inadmissibility of abuse of rights, which is key to qualifying a transaction as fraudulent. The court, in its decision, referred to the legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dated February 4, 2026, in case No. 910/6654/24, reinforcing the approach to the protection of rights in bankruptcy cases.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts, confirming the legitimacy of invalidating the agreement and returning the property to the debtor.
