Cadogan Energy Solutions Share Discussion Threads

[brumbrum79] 14/8/2021 17:28

The Call-Option and its exercise is one thing.

Pledge on Proger Ingegneria's shares is another one.

The PMP LOAN is secured by pledge on Proger Ingegneria's shares.
The PMP loan was not repaid at the maturity so the pledge on shares is still there.

[itsriskythat] 14/8/2021 16:46

You are correct the call option has expired and you say Cadogan can only enforce the pledge share. Hasn't the pledge expired with the call option?

[brumbrum79] 14/8/2021 16:32

The call-option (related to the PMP loan) is expired at the maturity of PMP Loan.

CPHBV can only enforce the pledge on Proger Ingegneria shares.

[itsriskythat] 14/8/2021 16:15

Impossible to say what effect Ingeneria's increased interest in Proger spa will have on Cadogan's indirect interest in Proger spa?

The answer:

On exercising the call option Cadogan acquires 31.8% of Proger spa. This breaches the 30% threshold and forces a mandatory offer for Proger spa.

I think this increase of shareholding by Ingeneria is an act of self defence by Proger, as Cadogan is not able to bid for Proger spa, and so Cadogan is not able to exercise the call option.


The calculation:

"As part of the loan instrument, Cadogan was granted a call option to acquire 33% of the participating interest that PMP holds in Proger Ingegneria."

In Feb 2019 according to Regulatory News CAD could have acquired 22.4% of Proger spa (67.9% x 33%)

In May 2020 according to Annual Report CAD could have acquired 24.1% of Proger spa (72.9% x 33%)

In May 2021 according to Annual Report CAD could have acquired 25.1% of Proger spa (75.9% x 33%)

Currently CAD could acquire 31.8% of Proger spa (96.5% x 33%)

[itsriskythat] 14/8/2021 10:27

Impossible to say what effect Ingeneria's increase will have on Cadogan's indirect interest in Proger spa?

[brumbrum79] 12/8/2021 23:35

Proger Spa
Something is moving...

In july 2021 Simest Spa (Italian government agency) sold its 20,53% participating interest to Proger Ingegneria Srl.


Until june 2021 Proger Spa's Shareholders was:

Soci e Titolari di Diritti su Azioni e Quote
Elenco dei soci e degli altri titolari di diritti su azioni o quote sociali al 27/07/2020
Estremi della pratica
Data Atto: 27/07/2020
Data Deposito: 25/08/2020
Protocollo: numero: CH-2020-33906 del 25/08/2020
Capitale Sociale
Capitale sociale dichiarato: 22.688.480,00 EURO
Numero Azioni: 2.268.848
Composizione Quote

Nome Codice Fiscale Quota % Tipo Diritto
PROGER INGEGNERIA S.R.L. 01960030680 € 17.233.390,00 75,96% PROPRIETA'
SOCIETA' ITALIANA PER LE IMPRESE ALL'ESTERO SIMEST S.P.A. 04102891001 € 4.658.000,00 20,53% PROPRIETA'
MANITALIDEA SPA 07124210019 € 411.400,00 1,81% PROPRIETA'
PROGER S.P.A. 01024830687 € 385.690,00 1,70% PROPRIETA'

English version:

Shareholders and Holders of Rights to Shares and Units
List of shareholders and other holders of rights in shares or units as at 27/07/2020
File reference
Deed Date: 27/07/2020
Filing date: 25/08/2020
Registration number: CH-2020-33906 of 25/08/2020
Share Capital
Declared share capital: EUR 22,688,480.00
Number of Shares: 2,268,848
Composition of shares

Name Tax code Share % Type of right
PROGER INGEGNERIA S.R.L. 01960030680 € 17,233,390.00 75.96% OWNERSHIP
SOCIETA' ITALIANA PER LE IMPRESE ALL'ESTERO SIMEST S.P.A. 04102891001 € 4.658.000,00 20,53% OWNERSHIP
MANITALIDEA SPA 07124210019 € 411,400.00 1.81% OWNERSHIP
PROGER S.P.A. 01024830687 € 385.690,00 1,70% OWNERSHIP

the data and information below are taken directly from the Italian company register and updated to 12 August 2021

Now Proger Spa's Shareholders are:

Soci e Titolari di Diritti su Azioni e Quote
Elenco dei soci e degli altri titolari di diritti su azioni o quote sociali al 08/07/2021
Estremi della pratica
Data Atto: 08/07/2021
Data Deposito: 30/07/2021
Protocollo: numero: CH-2021-33044 del 30/07/2021
Capitale Sociale
Capitale sociale dichiarato: 22.688.480,00 EURO
Numero Azioni: 2.268.848
Composizione Quote

Nome Codice Fiscale Tipo % Diritto
PROGER INGEGNERIA S.R.L. 01960030680 € 21.891.390,00 96,49% PROPRIETA'
MANITALIDEA SPA 07124210019 € 411.400,00 1,81% PROPRIETA'
PROGER S.P.A. 01024830687 € 385.690,00 1,70% PROPRIETA'

English version:
Shareholders and Holders of Rights to Shares and Units
List of shareholders and other holders of rights in shares or units as at 08/07/2021
File reference
Deed Date: 08/07/2021
Filing date: 30/07/2021
Registration number: CH-2021-33044 of 30/07/2021
Share Capital
Declared share capital: EUR 22,688,480.00
Number of shares: 2,268,848
Composition of Shares

Name Tax code % Type of right
PROGER INGEGNERIA S.R.L. 01960030680 € 21,891,390.00 96.49% OWNERSHIP
MANITALIDEA SPA 07124210019 € 411,400.00 1.81% OWNERSHIP
PROGER S.P.A. 01024830687 € 385,690.00 1,70% OWNERSHIP

______________________________________________________________________

Cadogan Petroleum Holdings BV (Netherlands sub-holding) always has a pledge on Shares of Proger Ingegneria S.R.L.

PROGER MANAGERS & PARTNERS S.R.L.

Partecipazioni in altre società
PROGER INGEGNERIA S.R.L.
Pratica: 88248981
stato codice fiscale
REGISTRATA 01960030680
Partita IVA: 01960030680
Natura Giuridica: SOCIETA' A RESPONSABILITA' LIMITATA

Estremi della pratica
Data Atto: 16/04/2019
Data Deposito: 03/05/2019
Protocollo: numero: CH-2019-17019 del 03/05/2019

quota € 8.874.659,73 39,92% tipo diritto PROPRIETA' (QUOTA IN PEGNO)

quota € 7.338.000,00 33,01% tipo diritto PROPRIETA'

English version:

PROGER MANAGERS & PARTNERS S.R.L.

Investments in other companies
PROGER INGEGNERIA S.R.L.
Practice: 88248981
tax code status
REGISTERED 01960030680
VAT number: 01960030680
Legal nature: LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

Practice details
Date of deed: 16/04/2019
Filing date: 03/05/2019
Protocol: number: CH-2019-17019 of 03/05/2019

share €8,874,659.73 39.92% type of right OWNED (PLEDGE SHARE)

share €7,338,000.00 33.01% type of right OWNERSHIP

__________________________________________________________________

It's time to wait and see what happens in the next months.

ByeBye

[diesel] 11/8/2021 13:50

Much the same here Doug, just holding for the loan settlement.

[dougdig] 11/8/2021 12:01

Thank you deisel - 10 years ago this was a very different company!
Although my long term losses are significant, at the current share price I have relatively little to lose so I think I will hold on for now in the hopes of better times ahead.

[diesel] 10/8/2021 15:39

Hard to value Doug.
Questionable management
Dodgy operating environment
Limited prospects
Industry out of favour with investors.
….however the loan to Proger looked like a move to diversify and into territory with slightly more predictable operating rules, that said it’s all gone a bit pear shaped.
The value here is in the loan or the Proger shares, a resolution could see this double overnight, but I’m not hopeful, they seem to have become a litigation company and so far that hasn’t bought results.
Good luck

[dougdig] 10/8/2021 11:04

Thank you Thordon and Russman. I am a lth and bought some years ago around 30pps when that looked undervalued. I was hoping for a decent recovery. Sadly my hopes have been in vain so far.
Given the present situation of CAD I wondered if anyone has tried to put a realistic value on shares as the current share price seems somewhat on the low side?

[russman] 10/8/2021 06:31

Some positive news on the Proger recovery would be helpful.

[thordon] 09/8/2021 22:28

Hold cash that's same value as company
Oil assets producing
Service group
Debt owed $15 million
dispute on oil well ( ceased operations ) in high court
Broker in gas market ( Assets held )

CEO buying shares at every opportunity

Any more that can help you

[dougdig] 05/8/2021 15:33

Hard to believe this was once over 200p per share. I am trying to think why it is still worthwhile holding on...?

[thordon] 25/7/2021 22:20

So both party's need to engage in the permit of well , litigation was rejected.

unless Ive read this wrong



DECREE

IN THE NAME OF UKRAINE

June 17, 2021

m. Kyiv

case N 640/17491/19

administrative proceedings N K / 9901/9986/21

The Supreme Court in the composition of the panel of judges of the Administrative Court of Cassation: Judge-Rapporteur Bernazyuk Ya.O., Judge Zhelezny IV, Judge Rybachuk AI, having considered in written proceedings in cassation an administrative case

on the claim of the Joint Stock Company "Ukrgazvydobuvannya"

to the State Service of Geology and Subsoil of Ukraine

on recognition of illegal and cancellation of the order, recognition of illegal inaction

on the cassation appeal of the Joint Stock Company "Ukrgazvydobuvannya"

to the decision of the District Administrative Court of Kyiv of November 10, 2020 (adopted by Judge Pogribnichenko IM) and the decision of the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal of March 1, 2021 (adopted by the panel: Presiding Judge Glushchenko YB, Judges Ganechko OM, Sobkiva YM),

INSTALLED:

Summary of claims

In September 2019, the Joint Stock Company "Ukrgazvydobuvannya" (hereinafter - the plaintiff, JSC "Ukrgazvydobuvannya" ) filed a lawsuit with the State Service of Geology and Subsoil of Ukraine (hereinafter - the defendant, Gosgeonadra of Ukraine), which requested:

to recognize illegal and cancel the order of Gosgeonadra of Ukraine "About the accepted decision concerning granting of the special permission for subsoil use" from August 16, 2019 N 287 ;

to recognize illegal inaction of Gosgeonadra of Ukraine on non-issuance of the order on issue of JSC "Ukrgazvydobuvannya" of the special permission for subsoil use for the purpose of geological studying of oil and gas subsoil, including research and industrial development of fields, with the subsequent extraction of oil and gas (industrial development of fields) within Tyachiv and Rakhiv districts of Zakarpattia region, valid for 20 years on the application submitted by letter dated March 23, 2017 N 3 / 2-01-2520;

to oblige Gosgeonadra of Ukraine to issue an order granting JSC Ukrgazvydobuvannia a special permit for subsoil use for the purpose of geological study of oil and gas subsoil, including research and development of fields, with subsequent extraction of oil and gas (industrial development of fields) Bila Tserkva Square, located in within Tyachiv and Rakhiv districts of Zakarpattia region, valid for 20 years on the application submitted by letter dated March 23, 2017 N 3 / 2-01-2520, and to issue JSC "Ukrgazvydobuvannya" special subsoil use permit for the purpose of geological study of oil and gas subsoil, including research and development of fields, with subsequent extraction of oil and gas (industrial development of fields) Bila Tserkva Square, located within Tyachiv and Rakhiv districts of Zakarpattia region, valid for 20 years .

In support of the claims it is stated that in accordance with subparagraph 13 of paragraph 8 of the Procedure for granting special permits for subsoil use, approved by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine dated May 30, 2011 N 615 (hereinafter - Order N 615), Public Joint Stock Company "Ukrgazvydobuvannya"by a letter dated March 23, 2017 submitted to the State Committee for Geodesy and Mapping of Ukraine an application for a special subsoil use permit for geological study of oil and gas subsoil, including research and development of fields, with subsequent extraction of oil and gas (industrial development of fields) Bila Tserkva area within Tyachiv and Rakhiv districts of Zakarpattia region, valid for 20 years. The plaintiff attached to the application all the documents required by Procedure No. 615, but the defendant by letter dated June 19, 2017 denied the plaintiff a special permit and returned the application due to the fact that subparagraph 13 of paragraph 8 of the Procedure was excluded by the Cabinet of Ministers of April 6 2016 N 277 .

Also, the plaintiff stated that pursuing the decision of the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal of January 15, 2019 in case N 826/16540/17, the defendant reconsidered the plaintiff's application of March 23, 2017 and again refused to grant special permission on similar grounds as already subject of litigation. Therefore, the defendant did not comply with the requirements of the court decision in terms of consideration of the application, taking into account the conclusions of the court, namely in accordance with the law in force at the time of application.

Summary of decisions of courts of previous instances

By the decision of the District Administrative Court of Kyiv of November 10, 2020, the administrative claim was denied.

Refusing to satisfy the claim, the court of first instance proceeded from the fact that the requirements for recognition of illegal decisions, actions or omissions of the subject of power, which are taken (committed or not committed) to enforce the judgment, in a separate proceeding are not considered.

Disagreeing with the decision of the court of first instance, the plaintiff filed an appeal, in which he asked to cancel the decision of the court of first instance and to adopt a new one, which will satisfy the claim.

By the decision of the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal of March 1, 2021, the appeal of JSC "Ukrgazvydobuvannya" was partially satisfied, the decision of the District Administrative Court of Kyiv of November 10, 2020 was canceled, the case No. 640/17491/19 was closed.

Ruling this decision, the appellate court concluded that since there is one that has entered into force a court decision on the same factual subject matter of the dispute (the plaintiff's right to consider his application of March 23, 2017 for a special subsoil use permit for geological study oil and gas subsoil, including research and development of fields, with subsequent extraction of oil and gas (industrial development of fields) Bila Tserkva Square Tyachiv and Rakhiv districts of Zakarpattia region for a period of 20 years and decision in accordance with the requirements of Procedure No. 615 ) and between the same parties, and therefore there are grounds for closing the proceedings in accordance with paragraph 4 of the firstArticle 238 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine (hereinafter - CAS of Ukraine ).

Summary and substantiation of the requirements of the cassation appeal

Disagreeing with the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances, considering them adopted with incorrect application of substantive law and violation of procedural law, the plaintiff filed a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court, requesting the appealed decisions of the courts of previous instances to cancel and adopt a new decision. satisfy completely.

In support of his arguments in the cassation appeal, the defendant points out that in the impugned court decisions the courts violated the rules of procedural law, namely the provisions of paragraph 4 of the first part of Article 238 , Articles 382 , 383 CAS of Ukraine , and incorrectly applied substantive law, namely the second part Article 19 of the Constitution of Ukraine , Article 1 of the Law of Ukraine "On Oil and Gas" of July 12, 2001 N 2665-III (hereinafter - Law N 2665-III ), part five of Article 16 of the Subsoil Code of Ukraine , paragraphs 8, 9, 25 of the Procedure for granting special permits for subsoil use, approvedResolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine of May 30, 2011 No. 615 (hereinafter - Procedure No. 615), part five of Article 4-1 of the Law of Ukraine "On the Permitting System in the Sphere of Economic Activity" of September 6, 2005 No. 2806-IV (hereinafter - Law No. 2806-IV ). In this regard, it was wrongly concluded that the method of protection chosen by the plaintiff does not eliminate the legal conflict and does not correspond to the object of the violated right, and therefore it is impossible to protect or restore the right if the court finds it violated.

The complainant alleges that the appellate court, in making the impugned decision in the case, applied the provisions of paragraph 4 of part one of Article 238 of the CAS of Ukraine without taking into account the opinion of the Supreme Court of 6 August 2020 in case N 804/3940/17, came to the wrong conclusion about the existence of a court decision, which entered into force between the same parties, about the same subject and on the same grounds of the claim.

In addition, in the cassation appeal the complainant stated that the courts did not take into account the conclusion of the Supreme Court in the decision of June 18, 2020 in case N 820/4556/17, which is that the need to go to court with a new claim for obligations of the subject The authority to take a specific decision in favor of the plaintiff, as an exception, may arise if the subject of power makes a decision based on the results of reconsideration, which the person will be denied again without taking into account the court's findings or on other grounds not previously assessed.

The position of other participants in the case

The respondent did not respond to the plaintiff's cassation appeal, which in accordance with Article 338 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine does not prevent the review of decisions of courts of previous instances.

Procedural actions in the case and petitions of the parties to the case

The cassation appeal was received by the court on March 22, 2021.

The decision of the Supreme Court of April 12, 2021 opened cassation proceedings in case N 640/17491/19, demanded an administrative case and invited the parties to respond to the cassation appeal.

By the decision of the Supreme Court of June 16, 2021, the case was assigned for consideration in writing on the basis of available materials without notice and summoning the parties by a panel of three judges from June 17, 2021.

With the cassation appeal, the appellant filed a petition for consideration of the cassation appeal in a court hearing with the participation of a representative, which was denied by a decision of the Supreme Court of June 16, 2021.

The circumstances of the case were established by the courts of previous instances

The courts of previous instances on the basis of available evidence in the case found that March 23, 2017 JSC "Ukrgazvydobuvannya" applied to Gosgeonadra of Ukraine with a request for a special permit for subsoil use for geological study of oil and gas, including research and development of fields, with the subsequent extraction of oil and gas (industrial development of deposits) of Bila Tserkva Square, without holding an auction.

By a letter dated June 19, 2017, the State Committee for Geodesy of Ukraine returned the package of documents due to the refusal of the Ministry of Environment to approve the use of the relevant subsoil due to the expiration of the rule that allowed to issue a special permit without bidding.

Disagreeing with this decision, the plaintiff appealed to the court.

By the decision of the District Administrative Court of Kyiv of October 11, 2018 in case N 826/16540/17, which was upheld by the decision of the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal of January 15, 2019, the claim was satisfied in part: concerning the application of PJSC "Ukrgazvydobuvannya" and the State Geodesy of Ukraine is obliged to reconsider the said application taking into account the conclusions of the court.

In pursuance of this court decision, the defendant on August 16, 2019 issued an order "On the decision to grant a special permit for subsoil use", which denied the plaintiff a special permit for subsoil use for geological study of oil and gas subsoil, including research and development fields, with subsequent extraction of oil and gas (industrial development of fields) Bila Tserkva Square Tyachiv and Rakhiv districts of Transcarpathian region for a period of 20 years on the grounds of invalidation of subparagraph 13 of paragraph 8 of Order No. 615.

Disagreeing with such actions and the decision of the defendant, JSC "Ukrgazvydobuvannya" filed a lawsuit.

POSITION OF THE SUPREME COURT

Evaluation of the conclusions of the courts of previous instances and the arguments of the parties

Giving a legal assessment of the established circumstances of the case and the arguments of the cassation appeal, as well as based on the limits of cassation review of the case, defined by Article 341 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine , the panel of judges notes the following.

According to the provisions of part four of Article 328 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, the grounds for a cassation appeal are incorrect application by the court of substantive law or violation of procedural law.

According to parts one, two and three of Article 242 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, a court decision must be based on the principles of the rule of law, be lawful and reasonable. A decision made by a court in accordance with the rules of substantive law in compliance with the rules of procedural law is lawful.

The decision made on the basis of fully and comprehensively clarified circumstances, to which the parties refer as the basis of their claims and objections, supported by the evidence that was examined at the hearing, is reasonable.

In addition, Article 2 and part four of Article 242 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine stipulate that a court decision must meet the objectives of administrative proceedings, namely to be fair and impartial, timely resolve disputes in public law in order to effectively protect the rights, freedoms and interests of individuals , rights and interests of legal entities from violations by the subjects of power.

The decision of the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal of March 1, 2021, which annulled the decision of the District Administrative Court of Kyiv of November 10, 2020 and closed the case, meets the requirements of the procedural law, and the appellant's arguments in the cassation appeal are unacceptable.

According to the first part of Article 370 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, a court decision that has entered into force is binding on the parties, their successors, as well as all bodies, enterprises, institutions and organizations, officials or other individuals and is subject to execution on the entire territory of Ukraine, and in cases established by international agreements, the binding nature of which has been approved by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, or on the principle of reciprocity - outside it.

According to Article 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, a court decision that has entered into force or is to be enforced immediately is the basis for its enforcement. Enforcement of court decisions in administrative cases is carried out in the manner prescribed by law.

According to the provisions of the first part of Article 1 of the Law of Ukraine "On Enforcement Proceedings" of June 2, 2016 N 1404-VIII (hereinafter - Law N 1404-VIII ) enforcement proceedings, as the final stage of court proceedings, and enforcement of decisions of other bodies (officials ) is a set of actions of bodies and officials defined in this Law, aimed at enforcement of decisions of courts and other bodies (officials), which are carried out on the grounds, within the powers and in the manner specified by this Law, other regulations acts adopted in accordance with this Law and other laws, as well as decisions that are subject to enforcement in accordance with this Law .

The first part of Article 11 of Law No. 1404-VIII states that the state executor is obliged to take the measures of enforcement of decisions provided for by this Law, to perform executive actions impartially, in a timely manner and in full.

From the analysis of the above legislative norms it is seen that it is impossible to oblige the subject of power to execute a court decision by making another court decision in this regard, as enforcement of a court decision is carried out in the manner prescribed by Law N 1404-VIII .

A similar legal position is set out in the decision of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of January 16, 2019 in case No. 686/23317/13-a .

According to Article 382 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine , special methods of judicial control over the execution of court decisions in administrative cases are determined, in particular, they include: the obligation of the subject of power to report on the execution of a court decision, imposition of a fine for non-execution of a court decision.

In accordance with the requirements of Article 383 of the CAS of Ukraine , the plaintiff in whose favor the court decision is made, has the right to apply to the court of first instance for recognition of illegal decisions, actions or omissions committed by the subject of power - the defendant to enforce such a court decision or violation plaintiff, confirmed by such a court decision.

Thus, the procedural law establishes the procedure for execution of court decisions in administrative cases and defines a certain sequence of actions that must be taken in order to oblige the defendant to properly execute the court decision.

The Supreme Court draws attention to the fact that the above-mentioned norms of the CAS of Ukraine are aimed at ensuring the proper execution of a court decision. The grounds for their application are the non-execution of the court decision in favor of the plaintiff and the circumstances that indicate the illegality of decisions, actions or omissions of the subject of power related to non-execution of the court decision in this case.

The presence of special norms in the CAS of Ukraine , aimed at ensuring the proper execution of the court decision, excludes the possibility of applying the general judicial procedure to protect the rights and interests of the claimant by filing a lawsuit. Judicial control over the execution of a court decision is carried out in the manner prescribed by the CAS of Ukraine , which does not provide for the possibility of filing a separate lawsuit, the subject of which is to motivate the defendant to execute the court decision.

According to Article 129-1 of the Constitution of Ukraine, a court decision is binding. The state ensures the execution of a court decision in the manner prescribed by law. The court exercises control over the execution of the court decision.

Therefore, the court decision is enforced directly and its implementation does not require the adoption of any other, additional court decisions.

These conclusions of the court are consistent with the legal position of the Supreme Court, expressed in the decision of November 21, 2019 in case No. 802/1933/18-a

As correctly established by the courts of previous instances, in essence, this dispute arose in connection with the illegal, in the opinion of the plaintiff, the defendant's failure to comply with the decision of the District Administrative Court of Kyiv of October 11, 2018 in case N 826/16540/17, the conclusions of the court set out in this decision. At the same time, the dispute over the need to consider the plaintiff's application of March 23, 2017 on the basis of the rules of Procedure No. 615, which were in force at the time of filing such an application, has already been resolved.

Thus, the contested decision of the defendant was taken to comply with the court decision in case N 826/16540/17, as directly stated in it (Vol. 1, a. P. 35), and therefore subject to review in accordance with Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine .

Such a procedure for appealing a decision of a subject of power adopted in pursuance of a court decision is more optimal for a person who believes that his rights have been violated, given, in particular, the provisions of part five of Article 383 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine . , consideration of the application for recognition of illegal decisions, actions or omissions committed by the subject of power is carried out by the court within 10 days from the date of its receipt.

Pursuant to part six of this article, if there are grounds to satisfy the application, the court, finding a violation of the law during the proceedings, may issue a separate decision and send it to the relevant authorities to take measures to eliminate the causes and conditions that contributed to the violation ; if necessary, the court may issue a separate ruling on the existence of grounds for consideration of the issue of bringing to justice persons whose decisions, actions or omissions are recognized as illegal.

The Court also takes into account that the issuance of a court decision, which provides for the assessment of a court decision made in another case, would be contrary to Article 129-1 of the Constitution of Ukraine .

In view of the above, the panel of judges concluded that the method of protection chosen by the plaintiff does not eliminate the legal conflict and does not correspond to the object of the violated right, and therefore it is impossible to protect or restore the right if the court finds it violated.

A similar legal position is expressed in the decision of the Supreme Court of April 17, 2019 in case No. 355/1648/15-a.

In these circumstances, the panel of judges notes that the plaintiff in this case chose the method of defense by filing a lawsuit to declare illegal the actions taken to enforce the court decision. However, the disputed legal relationship between the parties has already been resolved by the court and has entered the stage of execution of the court decision.

Thus, in the disputed legal relationship there are circumstances with which Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine connects the emergence of grounds for establishing judicial control over the execution of a court decision.

Accordingly, if the plaintiff believes that the decision, action or inaction of the defendant to enforce the above court decision violated his rights, freedoms or interests, he should have applied to the court under Article 383 CAS of Ukraine to declare illegal decisions, actions or inaction of the defendant (ie in the order of judicial control over the execution of the decision), and not to file a new administrative lawsuit.

Summarizing the above, the panel of judges notes that the requirements for recognition of illegal decisions, actions or omissions of the subject of power, which are taken (committed or not committed) to enforce a court decision, in a separate proceeding are not considered.

A similar position is set out in the decision of the Supreme Court of August 22, 2019 in case N 522/10140/17.

Therefore, the panel of judges of the Supreme Court concludes that since there is a court decision on the same factual subject matter of the dispute (the right of the plaintiff to consider his application of March 23, 2017 to grant a special permit for subsoil use for geological study oil and gas subsoil, including research and development of fields, with subsequent extraction of oil and gas (industrial development of fields) Bila Tserkva Square Tyachiv and Rakhiv districts of Transcarpathian region for 20 years and a decision in accordance with the requirements of Procedure No. 615 taking into account the court's findings ) and between the same parties, and therefore the appellate court, in contrast to the court of first instance,came to the correct conclusion that there are grounds for closing the proceedings in case N 640/17491/19 on the basis of paragraph 4 of the firstArticle 238 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine .

The court considers unfounded the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the failure of the appellate court to apply the conclusion of the Supreme Court set out in the decision of 18 June 2020 in case N 820/4556/17, as the circumstances of this case and case N 640/17491/19 are different. In particular, in case N 640/17491/19 the courts found that the dispute between the parties on the actual subject matter of the dispute has already been resolved and there is a court decision that has entered into force, while in case N 820/4556/17 the person applied lawsuit for the first time and justified it by the fact that the State Geocadastre again the plaintiff was denied permission to develop a land management project.

The court also considers unfounded the plaintiff's arguments regarding the failure of the appellate court to disregard the findings of the Supreme Court set out in the decision of 6 August 2020 in case N 804/3940/17, because in this case the court of cassation also found a court decision and the proceedings were closed on the basis of paragraph 4 of part one of Article 238 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. However, the difference between case No. 804/3940/17 and case No. 640/17491/19 is that in the last appellate court, in addition to closing the proceedings, it explained to the plaintiff that the proper way to protect the rights of and interests violated by the decision, action or inaction of the subject of power, which are accepted (committed or not committed) to enforce the court decision, is to apply to the court in accordance with Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine .

In addition, the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the non-identity of the claims in case N 826/16540/17 and case N 640/17491/19 are refuted by the fact that the main arguments of the statement of claim in case N 640/17491/19 relate to improper execution of the decision of the District Administrative Court of Kyiv of October 11, 2018 in case N 826/16540/17, and the content of the disputed order of the State Committee for Geodesy of Ukraine "On the decision to grant a special permit for subsoil use" of August 16, 2019 N 287 clearly shows that it was taken to implement the decision of the District of the Administrative Court of the city of Kyiv of October 11, 2018 in case No. 826/16540/17.

Thus, the arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the violation of the procedural law by the appellate court, namely Articles 238 , 382 , 383 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine , were not confirmed during the cassation review of the appealed decision of the appellate court.

The arguments of the cassation appeal regarding the incorrect application by the appellate court of substantive law, namely Article 19 of the Constitution of Ukraine , Article 1 of the Law of Ukraine "On Oil and Gas" , part five of Article 16 of the Subsoil Code of Ukraine , part five of Article 4-1 of the Law of Ukraine "On the permit system in the sphere of economic activity" and paragraphs 8, 9, 25 of Order No. 615, as the courts did not re-evaluate the actions of the defendant to consider the plaintiff's application of March 23, 2017 to grant a special permit for subsoil use for geological study of oil and gas, including research and development of fields , with the subsequent extraction of oil and gas (industrial development of fields) of Bila Tserkva area, located within the Tyachiv and Rakhiv districts of the Zakarpattia region.

As noted above, the appellate court closed the proceedings on the basis of paragraph 4 of the first part of Article 238 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine , as the dispute between the parties has already been resolved.

In accordance with the imperative requirements of Article 341 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, the court of cassation reviews court decisions within the arguments and requirements of the cassation appeal; on the basis of the established factual circumstances of the case only checks the correctness of the application by the court of first or appellate instance of the rules of substantive and compliance with the rules of procedural law.

The second part of Article 6 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine stipulates that the court applies the principle of the rule of law, taking into account the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.

The Law of Ukraine "On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges" establishes that the administration of justice in Ukraine operates on the basis of the rule of law in accordance with European standards, aimed at ensuring the right of everyone to a fair trial.

According to Article 17 of the Law of Ukraine "On Enforcement of Judgments and Application of the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights", courts use the provisions of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and its Protocols, as well as the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. European Commission of Human Rights.

In paragraph 40 of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Hornsby v. Greece, the Court noted that the right to judicial protection would be illusory if the national legal system of the High Contracting Party allowed a final, binding judgment to remain. unfulfilled to the detriment of either party. Effective access to justice includes the right to enforce a judgment without undue delay. (Hornsby v. Greece N 18357/91).

Paragraph 28 of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Antonyuk v. Ukraine (application no. 17022/02) states that the responsibility of the State for the enforcement of judgments against individuals is limited to the participation of public authorities in enforcement proceedings.

Conclusions on the results of the cassation appeal

In accordance with the first part of Article 350 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, the court of cassation leaves the cassation appeal unsatisfied, and court decisions - unchanged, if it finds that the courts of first and appellate instances did not allow misapplication of substantive law or violations of procedural law or taking procedural actions.

The decision of the appellate court in this case is lawful and reasonable and cannot be revoked, because the court, having thoroughly examined the circumstances of the case, resolved the dispute in accordance with substantive law and in compliance with procedural law, the contested court decision fully and comprehensively clarified the circumstances. in an administrative case with an assessment of all the arguments of the parties, and the arguments of the cassation appeal do not refute them.

Conclusions on the distribution of court costs

As the panel of judges upheld the decision of the appellate court, in accordance with Article 139 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, court costs are not subject to a new distribution.

Pursuant to Articles 341 , 345 , 349 , 350 , 355 , 356 , 359 of the CAS of Ukraine , the court

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Dismiss the cassation appeal of Ukrgazvydobuvannia Joint-Stock Company .

The decision of the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal of March 1, 2021, which annulled the decision of the District Administrative Court of Kyiv of November 10, 2020 and closed the proceedings in case N 640/17491/19, to remain unchanged.

The decision of the court of cassation takes legal effect from the date of its adoption and cannot be appealed.

Judge-Rapporteur Ya.O. Bernazyuk

Judges: Zhelezny IV

Rybachuk AI

[thordon] 24/7/2021 13:55

You can log a high court case but will not show on any search , in the mean time both party's have to show remediation or this will be a factor in high court judge.

My view is a deal will be done behind the curtains.

[russman] 24/7/2021 09:39

No court application recorded yet.
Would seem a basic first step.

[brumbrum79] 22/7/2021 17:53

Proger spa - annual financial report 2020
Link:
hxxp://www.proger.it/bilancio2020/

Good reading

[thordon] 21/7/2021 20:40

Technically would have to be made in Italy , but could be made in the UK courts as this is a British company.

[russman] 21/7/2021 17:42

& where has the court application been made?

[thordon] 20/7/2021 21:21

Its a court case , unless it can be arranged by talking
Shares are still for uptake in proger

[russman] 20/7/2021 19:23

Proger loan is a write-off until justification for no interest and no repayment is understood by the Auditors.

[itsriskythat] 14/7/2021 11:10

I am pretty confident new negotiations are part of the plan as Fady has just had an exceptional bonus approved of 5% of the cash recovered from Proger. Looks like recovery is going to be the priority for him.

He expects this to happen this year as the value of the Proger loan amount in the balance sheet has been discounted for a period of only twelve months. The auditors would have required a deeper discount if the recovery process was expected to drag on for years.