Abstract
Based on the analysis of the Ukrainian court practice, the article examines the peculiarities of applying such methods of protecting real estate ownership as determining the consequences of void contracts and the peculiarities of qualifying contracts as void; invalidation of fraudulent transactions; and application of the in rem confiscation model, which is expressed in the “unjustified assets” construct.
The author emphasizes that the invalidity of a fraudulent transaction in a non-competitive dispute should guarantee the interests of the creditor(s) “through the possibility of access to the debtor’s property”, even if it is held by other persons. The author presents the approach formulated by the Supreme Court of Ukraine which allows qualifying a fraudulent transaction in an out-of-competition dispute as: fictitious; committed contrary to the principle of good faith and inadmissibility of abuse of law; and violating public order.
The article also analyzes the atypicality of the legal regime of the Ukrainian model of in rem confiscation, namely, the “unjustified assets” construct. This atypicality is manifested in the imperfection and inconsistency of the current legislation of Ukraine, which is clearly illustrated by the author.
References
List of legal documents
Cases
1. Okrema dumka suddi KTsS VS Krata V. I. [Dissenting opinion of Judge V. I. Krat of the CCC of the Supreme Court ]vid 09.11.2022 u spravi №753/4498/19. Yedynyi derzhavnyi reiestr sudovykh rishen. URL: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/107354536 (in Ukrainian).
2. Postanova Apeliatsiinoi palaty Vyshchoho antykoruptsiinoho sudu vid 27.10.2021 v spravi №991/3401/21. Yedynyi derzhavnyi reiestr sudovykh rishen. URL: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/100837765 (in Ukrainian).
3. Postanova VP VS vid 03.07.2019 po spravi №369/11268/16-ts. Yedynyi derzhavnyi reiestr sudovykh rishen. URL: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/83482786 (in Ukrainian).
4. Postanova VP VS vid 10.04.2019 u spravi №463/5896/14-ts. Yedynyi derzhavnyi reiestr sudovykh rishen. URL: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/82065661 (in Ukrainian).
5. Postanova KTsS VS vid 05.04.2023 u spravi №523/17429/20. Yedynyi derzhavnyi reiestr sudovykh rishen. URL: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/110083824 (in Ukrainian).
6. Postanova KTsS VS vid 07.10.2020 po spravi №755/17944/18. Yedynyi derzhavnyi reiestr sudovykh rishen. URL: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/92315178 (in Ukrainian).
7. Postanova KTsS VS vid 12.04.2023 u spravi №754/18852/21. Yedynyi derzhavnyi reiestr sudovykh rishen. URL: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/110175637(in Ukrainian).
8. Postanova KTsS VS vid 29.06.2022 u spravi №571/1607/20. Yedynyi derzhavnyi reiestr sudovykh rishen. URL: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/105036574(in Ukrainian).
9. Postanova OP KHS VS vid 07.12.2018 u spravi №910/7547/17. Yedynyi derzhavnyi reiestr sudovykh rishen. URL: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/78484783(in Ukrainian).
Bibliography
Authored books
10. Non-Conviction-Based Confiscation in Europe: Possibilities and Limitations on Rules Enabling Confiscation without a Criminal Conviction / Rui, J. P., & Sieber, U. (Eds.). – Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. 2015. – 306 r. (in English)
11. Korchahin M. P. Komentar st. 290–292 // Tsyvilnyi protsesualnyi kodeks Ukrainy: naukovo-praktychnyi komentar [Commentary on Articles 290–292 //Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine: Scientific and Practical Commentary] za zah. red. Vasylyny N. V., Hulka B. I., Kota O. O. (VD «Dakor» 2021). S. 577. (in Ukrainian).
12. Krat V. Nediisnist fraudatornoho pravochynu maie harantuvaty interesy kredytora «cherez mozhlyvist dostupu do maina borzhnyka» [The invalidity of a fraudulent transaction should guarantee the interests of the creditor «through the possibility of access to the debtor’s property»] // Trokhy pro pryvatne pravo v sudovii praktytsi (za materialamy publikatsii v telehram-kanali «Trokhy pro pryvatne pravo» za 2022 rik) / Avtor ta redaktor V. I. Krat. – Kyiv, 2022. – S. 414–416; (in Ukrainian).
Other resources
13. Krat V. Znachennia konstruktsii konfiskatsii v pryvatnomu pravi.[ The value of the construction of confiscation in private law. ] URL: https://t.me/glossema/100. Opublikovano 17.03.2022. (in Ukrainian).
