1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of a private enforcement officer regarding the initiation of enforcement proceedings for the compulsory recovery of funds from JSC “Kharkivgaz”.<\/p>\n
2. The court of cassation agreed with the decision of the appellate court, which overturned the ruling of the court of first instance on the satisfaction of JSC “Kharkivgaz”‘s complaint against the actions of the private enforcement officer. The appellate court justified its decision by the fact that JSC “Kharkivgaz” did not provide sufficient evidence of the state’s share in its authorized capital exceeding 25%, and therefore, there are no grounds for limiting the competence of the private enforcement officer. The court of cassation emphasized that the location of the debtor’s property, in particular the bank account, in the enforcement district of the private enforcement officer is a sufficient basis for initiating enforcement proceedings. In addition, the court noted that the creditor provided evidence of the debtor’s open bank account in the city of Kyiv, which meets the requirements of the territoriality of enforcement proceedings. **** Importantly, the Supreme Court departed from the legal conclusion set out in the previous ruling of 19.12.2024 in case No. 903\/62\/23, regarding the identity of ARMA asset management and ownership rights.<\/p>\n
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of JSC “Kharkivgaz” and upheld the \u043f\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0430\u043d\u043e\u0432\u0443 (ruling\/decision) of the appellate court.<\/p>\n