CAN A NATURAL OR LEGAL PERSON CONTEST THE RESULTS OF AN AUCTION IF IT WAS NOT A BIDDER?

Suffice it to substantiate the existence of property interest in "property". Such a conclusion was made by the Supreme Court during the consideration of case No. 5/173 / b. The plaintiff in the case asked for the invalidation of the results of the repeated auction, as in the announcement of the first repeated auction.

Violating the requirements of the law, did not specify the marginal cost of property, which could be auctioned, as well as the realization of property was carried out in violation of Part 2 of Art. 66 of the Law of Ukraine "On Bankruptcy". In particular, the property was sold at 6.15% of the starting value of the repeated auction, while the repeated auction is made with the possibility of reducing the initial value, but not lower than the marginal value, which is 50% of the initial value indicated in the announcement of the auction .

The Supreme Court agreed with the complainant's arguments that he had a property interest in "property" in the meaning of art. 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and noted that he was entitled to his judicial protection, since the applicant, having appealed to the court requesting the invalidation of the results of the first re-auction, clearly indicated what his property interest was , as well as directly pointed out the norms of the national legislation that were violated during the conduct of public bidding.

At the same time, when investigating the issue of balancing the interests of the liquidator, the trade organization and the plaintiff, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that deliberate, gross violation of the order of the auction, which occurred in this case, causes social relations far more harm than the risks associated with ' the question of whether the plaintiff would take part in the second repeated auction, which would potentially be held in such a case.