Resolution of the Supreme Court in the case 824/139/25 dated 19 February 2026

Resolution

In the name of Ukraine

19 February 2026, Kyiv, Case No. 824/139/25, Proceeding No. 61-287av26

The Supreme Court, composed of a panel of judges of the Second Judicial Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court: M. Ye. Chervynska (Judge-Rapporteur), Ye. V. Korotenko, V. M. Korotun, with the participation of the secretary of the court hearing I. M. Kukailo, claimant: INFORMATION_1, respondent: legal entity INFORMATION_2, person who did not participate in the case: legal entity INFORMATION_3.,

with the participation of the representatives of INFORMATION_1: PERSON_2., PERSON_3., PERSON_4., with the participation of the representatives of legal entity INFORMATION_2: PERSON_5., PERSON_6., PERSON_7., with the participation of the representative of legal entity INFORMATION_3.: PERSON_8.,

has considered at a closed court hearing the appeal of the representative of legal entity INFORMATION_2, attorney PERSON_9, and of the person who did not participate in the case, legal entity INFORMATION_3., filed by attorney PERSON_10, against the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal, composed of Judge L. D. Polyvach, of 25 December 2025 in the case concerning the application of INFORMATION_1 for recognition and grant of leave to enforce the award of the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry of 26 March 2024 in case No. 425/2023 on the claim of INFORMATION_1 against legal entity INFORMATION_2 for recovery of a debt,

ESTABLISHED:

1. Descriptive part

Summary of the claims

In December 2025, INFORMATION_1 filed with the Kyiv Court of Appeal an application for recognition and grant of leave to enforce the award of the ICAC at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry of 26 March 2024 in case No. 425/2023 on the claim of INFORMATION_1 against legal entity INFORMATION_2 for recovery of a debt.

In December 2025, INFORMATION_1 filed with the Kyiv Court of Appeal an application for interim measures securing the claim, in which it requests that an attachment be imposed on INFORMATION_5 – INFORMATION_2 (ADDRESS_2), and that the said attached movable property be transferred for safekeeping to military unit NUMBER_1 (location: ADDRESS_1), and on the movable property INFORMATION_6 belonging to the respondent INFORMATION_2 (ADDRESS_2), and that the said attached movable property be transferred for safekeeping to INFORMATION_7 (location: ADDRESS_3); and that the court costs for payment of the court fee for filing this application be imposed on INFORMATION_2 (ADDRESS_2).

In support of the application, it is stated that the respondent has not complied with the award of the ICAC at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry of 26 March 2024 in case No. 425/2023, and its inaction indicates the absence of any intention to comply voluntarily with the ICAC award and to pay the awarded funds to the claimant. The respondent’s improper performance of the terms of the contract and its deliberate unfounded attempt to set aside the ICAC award give the claimant grounds for a reasonable assumption regarding the respondent’s bad faith conduct in the future and the latter’s intention to avoid compliance with the ICAC award. Given that the claimant has no information regarding the respondent’s property outside Ukraine, enforcement of the ICAC award against property located in Ukraine may be an opportunity to obtain part of the funds awarded under the ICAC award.

The claimant states that the property owned by the respondent may be removed by it outside Ukraine, disappear, decrease in quantity or deteriorate in quality before the decision on recognition and grant of leave to compulsorily enforce the ICAC award enters into legal force, given the respondent’s ability at any moment to alienate the property it owns and thereby make even partial recovery of the funds awarded under the ICAC award impossible; it therefore applies for securing the claim with a view to the actual performance by the debtor of its obligations under the ICAC award, in respect of which INFORMATION_1 had previously applied to the court with an application for recognition and grant of leave to compulsorily enforce.

Therefore, in the applicant’s opinion, failure to take interim measures securing the claim may result in the debtor in the case having the opportunity to alienate the property, which may significantly complicate or make impossible the enforcement of the award of the ICAC at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry of 26 March 2024 in case No. 425/2023 in the future and will result in a restriction of its rights to effective judicial protection.

Summary of the decision of the court of appeal rendered as a court of first instance

By the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal of 25 December 2025, the application of INFORMATION_1, filed by its representative PERSON_3., for securing the claim was granted. An attachment was imposed on movable property, namely:

- INFORMATION_8 belonging to the respondent INFORMATION_2 (ADDRESS_2), and the said attached movable property was ordered to be transferred for safekeeping to military unit NUMBER_1 (location: ADDRESS_1);

- INFORMATION_6 belonging to the respondent, INFORMATION_2 (ADDRESS_2), and the said attached movable property was ordered to be transferred for safekeeping to INFORMATION_7 (location: ADDRESS_3).

The court’s ruling is reasoned by the fact that the type of interim measure which the claimant requests will not lead to an unjustified restriction of the respondent’s property rights, since the ownership right to the property will remain with INFORMATION_2, while the court will restrict only the right to use and dispose of that property.

Since there is a dispute between the parties regarding the recovery of funds on the basis of supply contract No. NUMBER_3 concluded between them, while the debtor has taken no steps to repay the existing debt, and the documents in the case file confirm that taking interim measures securing the claim will help prevent a violation of the claimant’s rights and that such interim measures are justified and adequate to the claims asserted, the court concluded that there were grounds for granting the application for securing the claim by imposing an attachment on the property belonging to the respondent.

Arguments of the participants in the case

Summary of the arguments of the appeals

On 7 January 2026, through the “Electronic Court” subsystem, the representative of INFORMATION_2, attorney PERSON_9., applied to the Supreme Court with an appeal against the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal of 25 December 2025, in which he requests that the contested ruling be set aside and a new decision be adopted refusing the application of INFORMATION_1 for securing the claim by imposing an attachment on the debtor’s property.

The appeal is reasoned by the fact that the ownership right to the property currently under attachment passed on 17 November 2025 to INFORMATION_3. on the basis of contract No. NUMBER_4 concluded with INFORMATION_2. Thus, the Polish company INFORMATION_3. became the owner of the property, and the attachment imposed by the Kyiv Court of Appeal violates the rights and interests of the new owner.

It is stated that lifting the attachment from the property is warranted by the fact that, owing to its prolonged storage and non-use for its intended purpose, the clothing may deteriorate and lose its original properties and functional purpose, which will make it impossible to use it for its intended purpose.

On 23 January 2026, through the “Electronic Court” subsystem, the Supreme Court received the appeal of the person who did not participate in the case, filed by the representative of legal entity INFORMATION_3., attorney PERSON_8., against the ruling of the court of appeal of 25 December 2025, in which it is requested that the said ruling be set aside and a new court decision be adopted refusing in full the application of INFORMATION_1 for securing the claim by imposing an attachment on the property.

The appeal is reasoned by the fact that the contested ruling, by which an attachment was imposed on the property, violates the rights and interests of the Polish company, since it deprived INFORMATION_3., as the new owner of the military clothing, of the opportunity freely to possess, dispose of and use the property belonging to it by right of ownership.

Summary of the arguments of the responses to the appeals

On 5 February 2026, through the “Electronic Court” subsystem, the representative of INFORMATION_1, PERSON_2., filed a response to the appeal of INFORMATION_3., in which he requests that the said appeal be dismissed and the contested ruling be left unchanged. He states that the assertion of the transfer of the ownership right to the property from the debtor to the company INFORMATION_3. is untrue; the transactions on the basis of which the transfer of ownership allegedly took place are fraudulent and were created by the debtor and the company INFORMATION_3. after they had already received information about the imposition of the attachment on the property by the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal of 25 December 2025, for the purpose of lifting the attachment, removing the debtor’s property from the territory of Ukraine and avoiding enforcement of the ICAC award.

On 5 February 2026, through the “Electronic Court” subsystem, the representative of INFORMATION_1, PERSON_2., filed a response to the appeal of INFORMATION_2, in which he requests that the said appeal be dismissed and the contested ruling be left unchanged. He states that the debtor and the company INFORMATION_3. had no intention of performing the contracts, but concluded them after receiving the ruling on the imposition of the attachment of 25 December 2025 (deliberately backdating the contracts to a much earlier date) solely so that the debtor could have the attachment on the property lifted, remove it and thereby avoid enforcement of the ICAC award to the detriment of INFORMATION_9.

Course of the proceedings in the court of appeal

By the ruling of the Supreme Court of 14 January 2026, appellate proceedings were opened on the appeal of INFORMATION_2, and the case file was requisitioned from the Kyiv Court of Appeal.

By the ruling of the Supreme Court of 23 January 2026, appellate proceedings were opened on the appeal of the person who did not participate in the case, INFORMATION_3.

In January 2026, the file of case No. 824/139/25 was received by the Supreme Court.

By the ruling of the Supreme Court of 3 February 2026, the preparatory actions in the case were completed and the case was scheduled for consideration at an open court hearing with notice to the participants in the case.

By the ruling of the Supreme Court of 9 February 2026, a transition was made from consideration of the case at an open court hearing to consideration of the case at a closed court hearing.

The parties and their representatives were sent court summonses and notices of the date, time and place of consideration of case No. 824/139/25, which they received in the manner prescribed by law.

Position of the persons who participated in the case

At the court hearing, the representatives of legal entity INFORMATION_2, PERSON_5., PERSON_6., PERSON_7., and the representative of legal entity INFORMATION_3., PERSON_11., supported the arguments of their appeals and requested that they be granted.

The representatives of INFORMATION_1, PERSON_2., PERSON_12., PERSON_13, objected to the granting of the appeals and requested that the contested ruling be left unchanged.

Position of the Supreme Court

Article 24(2) and Article 351(2) of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine provide that the Supreme Court reviews on appeal the court decisions of the courts of appeal rendered by them as courts of first instance.

Pursuant to Article 367(1) of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, the court of appeal reviews the case on the basis of the evidence available in it and additionally submitted evidence and verifies the lawfulness and validity of the decision of the court of first instance within the limits of the arguments and claims of the appeal.

Pursuant to Article 368(1) and (3) of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, the case is considered by the court of appeal under the rules established for the consideration of a case in simplified claim proceedings, with the specific features established by this Chapter. The consideration of cases in the court of appeal is carried out at a court hearing with notice to the participants in the case, except in the cases provided for by Article 369 of this Code.

Having heard the report of the Judge-Rapporteur, having verified the arguments of the appeals, having taken into account the arguments set out in the responses to the appeals, and having examined the case file, the panel of judges has concluded that the appeals are not to be granted on the following grounds.

Factual circumstances of the case

According to the application for recognition and grant of leave to enforce the award of the ICAC at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry of 26 March 2024 in case No. 425/2023, the subject matter of the claim is a property claim for the recovery of funds from the debtor.

Thus, on 9 September 2022, INFORMATION_1 and INFORMATION_2 concluded supply contract No. NUMBER_3, under the terms of which INFORMATION_2, as supplier, undertook to transfer within the established time limit a batch (batches) of goods INFORMATION_10 into the ownership of INFORMATION_1 as buyer, and the buyer undertook to accept and pay for the goods in the manner and on the terms set out in this contract. By the award of the ICAC at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry of 26 March 2024 in case No. 425/2023, rendered by sole arbitrator Mr PERSON_1, the claim of INFORMATION_1 was granted. There was recovered from the company INFORMATION_2 in favour of INFORMATION_1 INFORMATION_11 as a penalty for failure to deliver the goods within the time limits provided for by the Specifications to the Contract, INFORMATION_12

By the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal of 20 September 2024 in case No. 82491/24, the application of INFORMATION_2 to set aside the award of the ICAC at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of 26 March 2024 in case No. 425/2023 on the claim of INFORMATION_1 against INFORMATION_2 for recovery of a debt was refused, and the award of the ICAC at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of 26 March 2024 in case No. 425/2023 was left unchanged.

By the resolution of the Supreme Court of 3 January 2025 in case No. 824/91/24, the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal of 20 September 2024 was amended, and its reasoning part was set out in the wording of that resolution.

When applying to the court with the application for securing the claim, the claimant requested that an attachment be imposed on the property belonging to the respondent, relying on the following evidence.

Thus, according to the information contained in the ruling of the High Anti-Corruption Court of 10 November 2025 in case No. 991/11123/23, there is property located in the territory of Ukraine of which the respondent is the owner (possessor), namely: INFORMATION_13 it was reported that the aforementioned property is in custodial storage at military unit NUMBER_1, in storage facility No. NUMBER_5 on the territory of military camp No. NUMBER_2, located at the address: ADDRESS_1.

Also, according to another ruling of the High Anti-Corruption Court of 10 November 2025 in the same case No. 991/11123/23, there is property located in the territory of Ukraine of which the respondent is the owner (possessor), namely: INFORMATION_14. The said ruling also states that the property is located at the warehouse of INFORMATION_7 at the address: ADDRESS_3. By letter No. 7.12-4/21-01/8.2/7628 of 9 December 2025, the Vinnytsia Customs of the State Customs Service of Ukraine also reported that the property is located at the warehouse of INFORMATION_7 at the address: ADDRESS_3. At the same time, the attachment on the said property was lifted within the framework of consolidated criminal proceedings No. 62022000000000370 of 9 June 2022.

In view of the foregoing, the claimant requested the court to impose an attachment on the above-mentioned property.

Reasoning part

Reasons on which the Supreme Court relies and the legal provisions applied

Pursuant to Article 152(1)(3) of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, an application for securing a claim is filed, after the opening of proceedings in the case, with the court before which the case is pending.

Article 152(3) of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine provides that an application for securing a claim in a case which has been referred for consideration to an international commercial arbitration or an arbitral tribunal is filed with the court of appeal at the seat of the arbitration or arbitral tribunal, or at the location of the respondent or its property, at the applicant’s choice.

Under Article 149 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, the court, on the application of a participant in the case, has the right to take the interim measures securing the claim provided for by Article 150 of this Code. Securing a claim is permitted both before the claim is brought and at any stage of the consideration of the case, if failure to take such measures may significantly complicate or make impossible the enforcement of the court decision or the effective protection or restoration of the violated or disputed rights or interests of the claimant for the protection of which the claimant has applied or intends to apply to the court, as well as on other grounds established by law. On the application of a party to a case which has been referred for consideration to an international commercial arbitration or an arbitral tribunal, the court may take interim measures securing the claim in the manner and on the grounds established by this Code.

The purpose of securing a claim is the taking by the court of measures to protect the substantive interests of the claimant against possible bad faith actions on the part of the respondent, so as to ensure for the claimant the actual and effective enforcement of the court decision if it is adopted in the claimant’s favour, including in order to prevent potential difficulties in the subsequent enforcement of such decision.

Securing a claim is, in essence, a restriction of the subjective rights, freedoms and interests of the respondent or of other persons connected with it in the interests of ensuring the future implementation of acts of justice and the satisfaction of the claims of the claimant (applicant).

The methods of securing a claim provided for by Article 150(1) of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine depend on the nature of the disputed legal relationship, the claims and other circumstances of the specific dispute that necessitate securing the enforcement of the court decision. The list of such methods is not exhaustive.

The types of securing a claim established by law include, in particular, the imposition of an attachment on property or funds belonging to the respondent and held by it or by other persons (Article 150(1)(1) of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine), as well as a prohibition on performing certain actions (Article 150(1)(2) and (4) of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine).

An attachment of property is to be understood as a prohibition on disposing of that property and, in certain cases, also on using it. A prohibition on performing certain actions may, among other things, be connected with the need to preserve the object of the dispute in its existing state and to preserve its status, which should facilitate the resolution of the dispute and the possibility of enforcing the court decision.

The resolution of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of 15 September 2020 in case No. 753/22860/17 (proceeding No. 14-88tss20) states: “a specific interim measure securing a claim will be commensurate with the claim if its application ensures: a balance of the interests of the parties and other participants in the court proceedings in the resolution of the dispute; the possibility of effective protection or restoration of the violated or disputed rights or interests of the claimant without violating or unjustifiably restricting the rights and protected interests of other participants in the case or of persons who are not participants in it; the possibility of enforcing the court decision if the claims, which are effective means of protecting the violated or disputed rights or interests of the claimant, are granted”.

Pursuant to Article 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, the types of securing a claim must be commensurate with the claims asserted by the claimant.

Commensurability implies the correlation of the negative consequences of taking interim measures securing the claim with the negative consequences that may arise as a result of failing to take such measures, taking into account the correspondence of the right or legitimate interest for the protection of which the applicant applies to the court to the property consequences of prohibiting the respondent from performing certain actions. Interim measures securing a claim may be taken by the court only within the limits of the subject matter of the claim and must not violate the rights of persons who are not participants in the given court proceedings (resolution of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of 12 February 2020 in case No. 381/4019/18 (proceeding No. 14-729tss19)).

The resolution of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of 18 May 2021 in case No. 914/1570/20 (proceeding No. 12-90hs20) states: “securing a claim is understood as a set of procedural actions that guarantee the enforcement of a court decision if the claims are granted. Thus, persons participating in the case are given the opportunity to avoid real risks of difficulty or impossibility of enforcing a court decision that will ensure judicial protection of the legitimate rights, freedoms and interests of such persons. In this regard, what is important is the objective existence of such risks, as well as the fact that the application of interim measures securing the claim is truly necessary, that without their application the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of the person (the applicant for the motion) will be violated, which is confirmed by proper and admissible evidence. It is also important that the person filing the motion for securing the claim did not aim to abuse its procedural rights or to violate the legitimate rights of the relevant participant in the proceedings to whom the said measures are to be applied, but to create conditions under which there will be no obstacles to the enforcement of the court decision. Therefore, when using the mechanism of securing a claim, the participants in the dispute must properly substantiate the grounds for applying the relevant interim measure in the specific case; indicate the circumstances showing that failure to take the said measure may hinder or make impossible the enforcement of the court decision; and confirm such circumstances with proper and admissible evidence”.

When considering an application for securing a claim, the court (judge) must, taking into account the evidence submitted by the claimant in support of its claims, ascertain, in particular, that a dispute has actually arisen between the parties and that there is a real threat of non-enforcement or of difficulty in enforcing a possible court decision granting the claim; establish the scope of the claims, the information about the respondent, and the correspondence of the type of interim measure which the person who filed such application requests to the claims; in establishing such correspondence, it should be taken into account that the measures taken must not impede the business activity of a legal entity or of a natural person engaged in such activity and registered as an entrepreneur in accordance with the law; in deciding on securing a claim, the court must take into account the interests not only of the claimant but also of other persons whose rights may be violated in connection with the application of the relevant measures. For example, restricting the ability of a business entity to use and dispose of its own property sometimes leads to irreversible consequences.

Failure to take interim measures securing a claim must not result in harm being caused to the claimant, and the taking of such measures must not result in harm being caused to interested persons.

Civil procedural legislation does not oblige the court, when considering issues of securing a claim, to verify the circumstances relevant to the case, but only prevents a situation in which the enforcement of the decision may be hindered or become impossible if the claim is granted.

Types of securing a claim are applied in order to guarantee the enforcement of a possible court decision, and such a decision may be rendered only in accordance with the claims asserted. Interim measures securing a claim should be applied only where necessary and must be commensurate with the claims asserted, since unjustified securing of a claim may lead to a violation of the rights and legitimate interests of other persons.

Similar conclusions are set out in the resolution of the Supreme Court of 11 August 2022 in case No. 522/1514/21 (proceeding No. 61-19123sv21).

Thus, the claimant has the right to request the securing of a claim by choosing the method which, in its opinion, will guarantee the enforcement of the court decision rendered in its favour.

The court of first instance established that a dispute had arisen between the parties regarding the recovery of funds on the basis of supply contract No. NUMBER_3 concluded between them, while the debtor had taken no steps to repay the existing debt, and reached the well-founded conclusion that taking interim measures securing the claim is justified and adequate to the claims asserted; therefore, the panel of judges agrees with the court’s conclusions that there were grounds for granting the application for securing the claim by imposing an attachment on the property belonging to the respondent.

Therefore, the foregoing shows that the imposition of an attachment on the property by the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal of 25 December 2025 is a proper and commensurate interim measure securing the claim. The Supreme Court agrees with the conclusion of the court of appeal, acting as the court of first instance, that the application was well-founded and was to be granted.

The arguments of the appeal of INFORMATION_2 that the property on which the attachment was imposed does not belong to the debtor, since it was alienated to the Polish company INFORMATION_3., do not affect the correctness of the conclusions of the court of first instance.

The Supreme Court has not established any violations of the rules of procedural law that led to an incorrect resolution of the case, nor any circumstances that constitute mandatory grounds for setting aside the court decision.

Conclusions of the Supreme Court following the consideration of the appeal

Pursuant to Article 375 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, the court of appeal dismisses the appeal and leaves the court decision unchanged if it finds that the court of first instance rendered the court decision in compliance with the rules of substantive and procedural law.

In view of the foregoing, having established the absence of grounds for setting aside the court decision, the Supreme Court has concluded that the appeal of INFORMATION_2 is to be dismissed and the contested ruling left unchanged.

As regards the appeal of the company INFORMATION_3., the following should be noted

A participant in the case, as well as persons who did not participate in the case if the court has decided on their rights, freedoms, interests and (or) obligations, have the right to appeal the decision of the court of first instance in whole or in part (Article 352(1) of the Civil Code of Ukraine).

An analysis of Article 352(1) of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine leads to the conclusion that this provision defines the range of persons vested with the procedural right to appeal a court decision, who are divided into two groups: participants in the case, and persons who did not participate in the case but whose rights, interests and (or) obligations are affected by the court decision (resolutions of the Supreme Court sitting as the Joint Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court of 5 September 2019 in case No. 638/2304/17 and of 29 January 2024 in case No. 750/13149/21).

That is, persons who did not participate in the case have the right to appeal only those court decisions that directly establish, change or terminate their rights and/or obligations, or give rise to legal consequences for them.

A necessary condition for a person who did not participate in the case to acquire the right to appeal a court decision is that the court act has decided on that person’s rights, freedoms, interests and (or) obligations.

The question of whether a court decision has decided on the rights, freedoms, interests and (or) obligations of a person who did not participate in the case must be resolved taking into account the specific circumstances of the case and the content of the court decision.

A court decision appealed by a person not joined to the case must directly concern the rights, interests and obligations of that person, that is, the court must have considered and resolved a dispute about a right in a legal relationship to which the appellant is a party at the time of the consideration of the case and the adoption of the decision by the court of first instance, or the decision must contain a finding on the rights and obligations of that person in the relevant legal relationship. A decision is one adopted on the rights and obligations of a person who was not joined to the case if the reasoning part of the decision contains the court’s conclusions on the rights and obligations of that person, or if in the operative part of the decision the court has expressly indicated the rights and obligations of such persons. In such a case, the decision violates not only the substantive rights of persons not joined to the case but also their procedural rights arising from the provision, set out in Article 6(1) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 4 November 1950, on the right of everyone to a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations.

Such conclusions were formulated by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in its ruling of 7 April 2020 in case No. 504/2457/15, and by the Supreme Court in its resolutions of 4 June 2020 in case No. 522/7758/14 and of 20 May 2024 in case No. 0827/11217/2012.

The court of appeal closes the appellate proceedings if, after the opening of appellate proceedings on an appeal filed by a person on the grounds that the court decided on that person’s rights, freedoms, interests and (or) obligations, it is established that the court decision did not decide on the rights, freedoms, interests and (or) obligations of such person (Article 362(1)(3) of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine).

Where an appeal is filed by a person who did not participate in the case and the court of appeal establishes that the court decision did not decide on the rights, freedoms, interests and (or) obligations of such person, the appellate proceedings are to be closed, and the decision of the court of first instance is not to be reviewed on the merits (resolution of the Supreme Court sitting as the Joint Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court within the Supreme Court of 29 January 2024 in case No. 750/13149/21).

The panel of judges concludes that the conclusion of contracts under the terms of which the company INFORMATION_2 alienated the disputed property on which the attachment was imposed in favour of the company INFORMATION_3. is not a ground for setting aside the contested ruling on securing the claim, since other persons who are owners (possessors) of the property and who consider that the property on which the attachment was imposed belongs to them rather than to the debtor may apply to the court with a claim for recognition of the ownership right to that property and for the lifting of the attachment from it, as provided for by Article 60 of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings”.

The mere acquisition by a person who did not participate in the case of the ownership right to property in respect of which a dispute has arisen does not necessarily indicate that the court decision has decided on that person’s rights, freedoms, interests and (or) obligations. Instead, the question of whether a court decision has decided on the rights, freedoms, interests and (or) obligations of a person who did not participate in the case must be resolved on the basis of the specific circumstances of the case and taking into account the content of the court decision.

A legal conclusion similar in content is set out in the resolutions of the Supreme Court of 16 November 2020 in case No. 465/581/20 and of 2 December 2020 in case No. 0541/4463/2012, and in the ruling of the Supreme Court of 13 June 2019 in case No. 695/319/19.

Thus, the arguments of the appeal of the company INFORMATION_3. that the existence of interim measures securing the claim violates its rights and interests do not merit attention, since the owner of the property is not deprived of the opportunity to apply to the court with an appropriate claim for the protection of its violated right; therefore, the court concludes that the appellate proceedings are to be closed on the basis of Article 362(1)(3) of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine.

Guided by Articles 24, 351, 367, 368, 369, 374, 376, 381-384 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, the Supreme Court, composed of a panel of judges of the Second Judicial Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court,

RULED:

The appellate proceedings on the appeal of legal entity INFORMATION_3., filed by attorney PERSON_10, against the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal, composed of Judge L. D. Polyvach, of 25 December 2025 in the case concerning the application of INFORMATION_1 for recognition and grant of leave to enforce the award of the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry of 26 March 2024 in case No. 425/2023 on the claim of INFORMATION_1 against legal entity INFORMATION_2 for recovery of a debt are to be closed.

The appeal of legal entity INFORMATION_2 is to be dismissed.

The ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal of 25 December 2025 is to be left unchanged.

The resolution of the court enters into legal force upon its adoption, is final and is not subject to appeal.

Judges:|M. Ye. Chervynska |

|Ye. V. Korotenko |

|V. M. Korotun|