Arrest cannot be indefinite: The Supreme Court overturned the decision in the case of a 10-year encumbrance on property

The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court in the case regarding the maintenance of the arrest on the debtor's property, which had been in effect for more than 10 years after the completion of enforcement proceedings. The court pointed out that an arrest cannot exist indefinitely in the absence of open enforcement proceedings and a real possibility of enforcing a court decision.

This decision was made by the Civil Cassation Court in case No. 932/5808/25.

Case circumstances

In May 2025, the debtor filed a complaint with the court against the inaction of the state executor of the First Right Bank Department of the State Executive Service in the Shevchenkivskyi and Central districts of Dnipro. He stated that the State Register of Property Rights to Real Estate still contained four records of arrests on his real estate, imposed based on rulings of state executors of the Babushkinsky Department of the State Executive Service.

The arrests were imposed within enforcement proceedings to recover UAH 71,501.89 under an enforcement order issued in 2007, and UAH 46,298.40 under an enforcement order from 2009.

According to the applicant, on March 4, 2013, the enforcement proceedings were completed due to the transfer of enforcement documents to another body of the State Executive Service — the Lyuboml District Justice Department of Volyn Region. Later, on June 24, 2014, the documents were again transferred by jurisdiction to the First Department of the State Executive Service of the Lutsk City Justice Department. However, as the debtor claimed, they never actually arrived there.

He also emphasized that for the last five years, enforcement proceedings under these enforcement orders were not being executed by the State Executive Service bodies, and the claimant did not apply to the court for duplicates of the enforcement orders.

In the applicant's opinion, under such circumstances, the arrest of the property should have been lifted, since there were no open enforcement proceedings, and the continued maintenance of restrictions without the possibility of compulsory enforcement of court decisions was an unjustified interference with his right to peacefully possess his property.

In this regard, he asked the court to recognize the inaction of the state executors regarding the failure to lift the arrests as illegal and to oblige the executive service to cancel the encumbrances imposed on his real estate.

However, on June 26, 2025, the Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Dnipro refused to satisfy the complaint. The court noted that the enforcement proceedings were completed not due to the execution of the decision, but due to the transfer of documents by jurisdiction to another body of the State Executive Service, so there were no grounds for automatic cancellation of the arrest.

On December 16, 2025, the Dnipro Appellate Court upheld this decision.

Supreme Court decision

The court noted that the enforcement orders in this case were issued under the Law of Ukraine "On Enforcement Proceedings" No. 606-XIV. According to this law, the seizure of the debtor's property implied its arrest, seizure, and compulsory sale.

The Supreme Court reminded that the arrest of property is one of the measures that restrict the debtor's ability to alienate property to ensure the enforcement of a court decision. At the same time, such a measure cannot exist independently without connection to enforcement proceedings.

The court also noted that the enforcement proceedings concerning the debtor were last sent on February 24, 2014, to the First Department of the State Executive Service of the Lutsk City Justice Department by jurisdiction. At the same time, the case materials did not contain evidence that this body opened the corresponding enforcement proceedings. Also, the First Right Bank Department of the State Executive Service reported that the enforcement proceeding was destroyed due to the expiration of the storage period, and information about one of the encumbrances was absent in the Automated Enforcement Proceedings System.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the application of property arrest as a restrictive measure should not lead to a violation of the right to peaceful possession of property, guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

The court stated that the right of ownership is inviolable, and restrictions on its exercise are possible only in cases and in the manner established by law.

The Supreme Court has already formed a legal position according to which the prolonged maintenance of the arrest on the debtor's property in the absence of enforcement proceedings and property claims from the claimant is an unjustified interference with the person's right to peaceful possession of property.

In this case, the lower courts did not take into account that more than 10 years had passed since the completion of enforcement proceedings. The case materials did not contain evidence that the claimant or its successors re-submitted enforcement documents for execution.

The Supreme Court pointed out that there is no evidence in the case of legal grounds for the further application of the property encumbrance and no proof of the existence of enforcement proceedings for which it is necessary to maintain the arrest.

The court also noted that the First Right Bank Department of the State Executive Service in the Shevchenkivskyi and Central districts of Dnipro is the legal successor of the Babushkinsky Department of the State Executive Service, whose state executors imposed the disputed arrests. Therefore, this body has the authority to resolve the issue of canceling the encumbrance.

The Supreme Court stated that the debtor correctly chose the method of protection by filing a complaint about the inaction of the state executor.

The court explained that the debtor, as a party to enforcement proceedings, in case of disagreement with the arrest of property imposed by a state or private executor, has the right to appeal the actions or inaction of the executor in the manner provided by civil procedural law. Filing a lawsuit to lift the arrest on property is not the proper method of protection in such a situation.

At the same time, the Supreme Court noted that it cannot independently establish circumstances that were not examined by the lower courts and assess evidence instead of them.

The Cassation Court concluded that the appellate court did not properly investigate whether there were legal grounds for maintaining the arrest on the property in the absence of open enforcement proceedings and the possibility of continuing compulsory enforcement of the decision.

In this regard, the Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturned the ruling of the Dnipro Appellate Court dated December 16, 2025, and sent the case for a new hearing to the appellate court.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, our page on Facebook and on Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.