The review was prepared by the Higher School of Advocacy of the National Bar Association of Ukraine.
Considering that a residential house is an object of joint ownership of a couple, the shares of the wife and husband in the property are equal, the first-instance court correctly concluded on the partial satisfaction of the claim and cancellation of the arrest of 1/2 share in the right to the residential house
Ruling of the Supreme Court composed of the panel of judges of the Third Judicial Chamber of the Cassation Civil Court dated May 14, 2024 in case No. 545/2597/23
In accordance with Article 1281 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, heirs are obliged to notify the creditor of the deceased about the opening of the inheritance if they are aware of his debts, and/or if they inherit property encumbered with the rights of third parties.
The creditor of the deceased must assert his claims against the heir who accepted the inheritance no later than six months from the date the heir received the certificate of the right to the inheritance for all or part of the inherited property regardless of the limitation period.
If the creditor of the deceased did not know and could not have known about the acceptance of the inheritance or the receipt of the certificate of the right to the inheritance by the heir, he has the right to assert his claims against the heir who accepted the inheritance within six months from the date he learned about the acceptance of the inheritance or the receipt of the certificate of the right to the inheritance by the heir.
The creditor of the deceased who did not assert claims against the heirs who accepted the inheritance within the time limits set out in the second and third parts of this article loses the right to assert claims.
According to Article 1282 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, heirs are obliged to satisfy the creditor’s claims in full, but within the value of the property received in the inheritance. Each of the heirs is obliged to satisfy the creditor’s claims personally, in the amount corresponding to his share in the inheritance.
The creditor of the deceased must satisfy the creditor’s claims by a one-time payment if there is no other agreement between the heirs and the creditor.
In case of refusal to make a one-time payment, the court, at the creditor’s claim, enforces the recovery of the property transferred to the heirs in kind.
According to Article 59 of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings,” the grounds for the enforcement officer to lift the arrest from all property (funds) of the debtor or its part include, in particular: the receipt of the amount of funds collected from the debtor (including from the sale of the debtor’s property) necessary to satisfy the claims of all creditors, the collection of the enforcement fee, the costs of the enforcement proceedings, and fines imposed on the debtor; the availability of a written conclusion of an expert, an entity engaged in appraisal activities – a business entity regarding the impossibility or inexpediency of the realization of the debtor’s arrested property due to its significant wear and tear, damage.
PERSON_1 was aware of the existence of unpaid debts of PERSON_2 on the day of death to the CS “Officer Credit Union,” therefore, the plaintiff, as the heir of the rights and obligations regarding the property and obligations that PERSON_2 had during his lifetime, in accordance with the first part of Article 1281 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, was obliged to notify the creditor of the debtor about his death.
Proper and admissible evidence that the plaintiff informed the creditor about the death of the debtor PERSON_2 is absent in the case materials.
Considering that a residential house at ADDRESS_1 is an object of joint ownership of a couple, the shares of the wife and husband in the property are equal, the first-instance court correctly concluded on the partial satisfaction of the claim and cancellation of the arrest of 1/2 share in the right to the residential house imposed by the decision of the chief state executor of the department of the state executive service of the Poltava district justice department Deriabina O. H. dated February 17, 2014 within the enforcement proceedings No. NUMBER_3.
Source: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/119134188
A claim for the release of property from arrest may be filed by the owner, as well as a person who possesses property on the basis of law or contract or other legal grounds that do not belong to the debtor
Ruling of the Supreme Court composed of the panel of judges of the First Judicial Chamber of the Cassation Civil Court dated January 22, 2025 in case No. 207/3013/20
A claim for the release of property from arrest may be filed by the owner, as well as a person who possesses property on the basis of law or contract or other legal grounds that do not belong to the debtor (property right to another’s property). The defendants in the case are the debtor, the person on whose behalf the property is arrested, and in certain cases – the person to whom the property was transferred if it was sold. As a third party who does not make independent claims regarding the subject of the dispute, the relevant state executive service authority, as well as the relevant tax and revenue authority (fiscal service authority), bank, and other financial institution, which, in cases provided by law, enforce court decisions, must be involved.
Taking into account the above, the appellate court, by denying the satisfaction of the plaintiff’s claims for the release of property from arrest imposed in the enforcement proceedings and in civil cases No. 187/998/16-ц, 752/2965/19, in violation of the above-mentioned provisions of the law, did not pay attention to the fact that LLC “FC “Mustang Finance” is the owner of the disputed immovable property, as a result of which it was justified to file a claim for the release of property from arrest.
In paragraph 2 of point 8 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Higher Specialized Court for Civil and Criminal Cases dated June 3, 2016 No. 5 “On Judicial Practice in Cases of Lifting the Arrest from Property,” the courts were explained that if the plaintiff is the owner of the disputed property, the claim for the release of property from arrest is resolved.
In violation of the above provisions of the law, the appellate court did not take into account that, since LLC “FC “Mustang Finance” is already the owner of the disputed multifunctional building, in this specific case, it does not need to file a claim for the recognition of the property right to this real estate.
Therefore, the appellate court decision to refuse to satisfy the plaintiff’s claims for the release of property from arrest imposed in the enforcement proceedings and in civil cases No. 187/998/16-ц, 752/2965/19, with the direction of the case in this part to the appellate court for a new review, should be canceled.
Source: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/124630080
A person who believes that the property subject to arrest belongs to him, not the debtor, may apply to the court with a claim for recognition of ownership rights to this property and for the lifting of the arrest
Ruling of the Supreme Court composed of the panel of judges of the Third Judicial Chamber of the Cassation Civil Court dated March 19, 2025 in case No. 757/48626/24
According to the first part of Article 59 of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings,” a person who believes that the property subject to arrest belongs to him, not the debtor, may apply to the court with a claim for recognition of ownership rights to this property and for the lifting of the arrest.
If the description and arrest of the property were carried out by the state executor, the complaint of the enforcement proceedings party is considered in the manner provided for in Chapter VII of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine. Other persons who are owners (possessors) of the property and who believe that the property subject to arrest belongs to them may apply to the court with a claim for recognition of ownership rights to this property and for the lifting of the arrest, as provided by the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings.”
Thus, taking into account the subject and grounds of the claim, the circle of case participants determined by the plaintiff, and the content of the claims, this dispute is not public-law, as by its nature, it is a private-law dispute and, therefore, should be considered in the civil procedure.
Taking into account the above, the arguments of the cassation appeal do not refute the conclusions of the appellate court regarding the existence of grounds for referring this case to the court of first instance for further consideration, and therefore, do not provide a basis to consider the application of the procedural law by the appellate court in making the challenged court decision incorrect.
Source: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/126259061
Since the plaintiff was a debtor in the enforcement proceedings, within which an arrest was imposed on his immovable property, he cannot file a claim for the lifting of the arrest from the property, as the legislation of Ukraine provides for another way of judicial protection in this case
Ruling of the Supreme Court composed of the panel of judges of the First Judicial Chamber of the Cassation Civil Court dated February 17, 2025 in case No. 295/6687/24
In the case reviewed in the cassation procedure, it was established by the courts of the first and appellate instances that PERSON_1 owns a share in the private joint partial ownership of the apartment at ADDRESS_1, based on the certificate of the right to inheritance dated August 16, 2007 No. 3-936.
According to the letter of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine dated September 25, 2020, the enforcement proceedings in the department of the state executive service of the Leninsky district justice department of the city of Sevastopol from October 10, 2007 were in the process of enforcement under enforcement proceedings No. NUMBER_1 for the execution of the enforcement order of the Leninsky City Court dated September 17, 2007 No. 2-1248/07 for the recovery from PERSON_1 in favor of JSC CB “PrivatBank” funds in the amount of 3,068.01 UAH (enforcement proceedings status – open), and enforcement proceedings No. NUMBER_2 for the execution of the enforcement order of the Leninsky District Court dated September 17, 2007 No. 2-1248/07 for the recovery from PERSON_1 in favor of JSC CB “PrivatBank” funds in the amount of 3,068.01 UAH (enforcement proceedings status – completed).
During the forced execution of the specified enforcement proceedings, by the decisions of AV 611202, AA179446 dated October 10, 2007, the state executor (record number of encumbrance 5830736) imposed an arrest on the immovable property of PERSON_1.
Thus, it was established by the courts of the previous instances that PERSON_1 was a debtor in the enforcement proceedings, within which an arrest was imposed on his immovable property.
According to paragraph 1 of the first part of Article 186 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, the judge refuses to initiate proceedings in the case if the application is not subject to consideration in the civil procedure.
Taking into account the above, the panel of judges of the Supreme Court agrees with the conclusion of the court of first instance, with which the appellate court agreed, that since PERSON_1 was a debtor in the enforcement proceedings, within which an arrest was imposed on his immovable property, he cannot file a claim for the lifting of the arrest from the property, as the legislation of Ukraine provides for another way of judicial protection in this case, namely, challenging the actions and decisions of the state executor by the debtor in the manner provided for in Chapter VII of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine.