1. **Subject of the dispute:** The subject of the cassation appeal is the legality of the appellate court’s ruling to stay the proceedings in a case concerning the challenge to the actions of executive service officials, pending the resolution by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of another case involving similar legal relations.
2. **Court’s arguments:**
– The court was guided by the provisions of Clause 10, Part 1, Article 252 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, which allows for the stay of proceedings if another case is addressing an issue involving similar legal relations upon which the outcome of the current case depends.
– The appellate court established that the legal relations in case No. 127/6664/14-ц, which was under consideration by the Grand Chamber, are identical to the disputed relations regarding the authority of the head of the executive service to cancel the resolutions of subordinate enforcement officers.
– The Supreme Court confirmed that the Grand Chamber was designated as the appropriate body to resolve the legal issue, as there was conflicting practice among cassation courts regarding the interpretation of Article 74 of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings.”
– The court, in its decision, effectively supported the need to depart from the previous position of the Administrative Cassation Court within the Supreme Court (case No. 802/921/18-a), which permitted extrajudicial control of enforcement proceedings at the initiative of the head of the State Executive Service, in favor of a narrower interpretation that limits such powers solely to the framework of complaint handling.
– The Supreme Court noted that the stay of proceedings was a necessary measure to ensure the uniformity of judicial practice and legal certainty.
– The cassation appeal of the claimant was dismissed, as the arguments regarding the violation of reasonable time limits for the consideration of the case did not outweigh the need to await the legal conclusion of the Grand Chamber.
– At the time of the consideration of the cassation appeal, the Grand Chamber had already rendered the relevant decision, which confirmed the correctness of the procedural path chosen by the appellate court.
3. **Court’s decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s ruling to stay the proceedings.
