1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a loan agreement and securing this claim by imposing an arrest on an apartment that is already under mortgage.
2. The court of first instance granted the application for securing the claim by imposing an arrest on the debtor’s apartment, considering it necessary to ensure the enforcement of a future court decision. The appellate court reversed this decision, reasoning that the arrest violates the rights of the mortgagee, who is not a party to the case, depriving him of the opportunity to exercise his priority right to satisfy the claims at the expense of the mortgaged property. The Supreme Court, reversing the decision of the appellate court, indicated that the imposition of an arrest does not deprive the mortgagee of his priority right, since the mortgage remains valid, and the creditor has the right to satisfy his claims at the expense of the mortgaged property in preference to other creditors. The court of cassation also noted that the appellate court did not take into account the provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On Mortgage” regarding the priority of the mortgagee’s rights.
3. The court reversed the appellate court’s ruling and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
**Significance:** The court departed from the previous position expressed in other decisions of the Supreme Court regarding the violation of the mortgagee’s rights in the case of securing a claim by imposing an arrest on mortgaged property.
