1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of a private enforcement officer regarding the suspension of enforcement proceedings and the lifting of the seizure of property of JSC “ODS “Volyngaz” in connection with its participation in the debt settlement procedure in the natural gas market.
2. The court of cassation overturned the appellate court’s ruling, upholding the decision of the court of first instance, based on the fact that the private enforcement officer is obliged to suspend enforcement proceedings if the debtor is included in the register of enterprises participating in the debt settlement procedure in the natural gas market, and the amount of recovery is subject to settlement in accordance with the Law of Ukraine No. 1639-IX. The court noted that the enforcement officer does not have the authority to assess the amount of debt subject to settlement, as this is the competence of other bodies. Also, the court departed from the previous legal position, according to which asset management was equated to ownership, emphasizing that the asset owner retains ownership even in the event of the transfer of property to ARMA management. The court emphasized that asset management does not change the title of ownership, but only limits the implementation of certain powers for the duration of the seizure. The court indicated that the presence of JSC “ODS “Volyngaz” in the register of enterprises participating in the debt settlement procedure is the basis for suspending enforcement proceedings, and the actions of the private enforcement officer complied with the requirements of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings”.
3. The court of cassation overturned the appellate court’s ruling and upheld the decision of the court of first instance, refusing to satisfy the cassation appeal of LLC “GC “Naftogaz of Ukraine”.
****: The court in its decision states that it is departing from the previous position that was in other decisions of the Supreme Court.
