1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal against the actions of the state enforcement officer regarding the return of the writ of execution to the claimant without acceptance for execution.<\/p>\n
2. The court of cassation instance, upholding the decisions of the previous instances, proceeded from the fact that the state enforcement officer unlawfully returned the writ of execution, citing the absence of a term for presenting the decision for execution, since such a term was specified in the writ of execution. The court also noted that the absence of the EDRPOU code at the Embassy of the Republic of Belarus is not a ground for returning the writ of execution, since the Embassy is a foreign institution and is not obliged to have such a code. The court departed from the principle of immunity of a foreign state, considering the complicity of the Republic of Belarus in the military aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, which makes it impossible to apply the norms on judicial immunity to it. The court emphasized that the Republic of Belarus, by providing its territory for aggression against Ukraine, violated international law, and therefore cannot enjoy immunity within the meaning of Article 79 of the Law of Ukraine “On Private International Law.” The court also took into account that the issue of the possibility of recovering funds from the Embassy had already been decided by the court of first instance in the consideration of the case on the merits.<\/p>\n
3. The court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the previous instances.<\/p>\n