1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of electronic auctions as invalid, the cancellation of the electronic auction protocol, the act of realization of the mortgage item, and the certificate of acquisition of real estate.
2. The appellate court overturned the decision of the court of first instance, which had granted the claim, reasoning that at the time of the electronic auctions, the executive inscription of the notary was valid, and the decision to recognize it as not subject to execution was made later. The appellate court indicated that the circumstances that are the basis for declaring the auctions invalid must exist at the time of the auctions. Also, the appellate court referred to the case law of the Supreme Court, namely that the cancellation of a court decision in itself is not a basis for declaring a transaction invalid. The Supreme Court agreed with the decision of the appellate court, noting that the existence of grounds for declaring the auctions invalid must be established by the court at the time they were held. The Supreme Court also noted that the plaintiff did not cite other grounds for declaring the electronic auctions invalid, other than the cancellation of the executive inscription of the notary.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the appellate court’s decision.
**** The Court indicated that it departs from the previous conclusions of the Supreme Court, set forth in the rulings of November 07, 2018 in case No. 712/1317/14-ц and of February 07, 2019 in case No. 522/1516/15-ц, regarding the fact that the recognition of the executive inscription as not subject to execution means that it was such from the moment of its commission, and therefore the public auctions conducted on the basis of such executive inscription are illegal and subject to being declared invalid.
