Submit your application

Are you familiar with the terms of the loan? That means you was not be deceived by the bank!

The borrower, who has familiarized himself with the terms of the lending, cannot accuse the bank of fraud or must prove his accusation in court, if it came to this.

Establishes this, shall we say, dogma, the legal conclusion of the Supreme Court of Ukraine in case No. 569/423/15-c of 03/05/18 and the older conclusion in case No. 6-1341cc15 of 02.12.15.

These conclusions “answer” the question in which case it is considered that the bank does not violate the procedure for informing on the terms of the loan, and thereby neutralizes the possibility of applying the consumer law.

So, the conclusion of the Supreme Court of Ukraine in case No. 569/423/15-c of 03/05/2018 establishes a rule stating that the plaintiff must substantiate his claims against the bank (accusation of fraud) with serious arguments, if he familiarized himself with the terms of the loan and confirmed the fact of familiarization with his signature.

Prehistory of conclusion

The citizen appealed to the court for the protection of her violated right of the consumer of financial services, the recognition of the loan agreement as invalid. The plaintiff insisted that the bank had deceived her – before and during the conclusion of the loan agreement, it did not fulfill the essential conditions of the agreement on providing borrowers with full information about the terms of the loan.

“She accused the bank of deliberately concealing the actual value of the real interest rate and the rise in the cost of the loan on her mortgage. According to the plaintiff, the bank, using elements of dishonest business activity in its activities, established unfair lending conditions restricting her consumer rights, thereby deceiving her! “

The bank, in a counterclaim, asked the court to recover the debt and penalty interest from the borrower and her guarantor, since she did not fulfill the financial obligation she had assumed.

Litigation …

It began with the refusal of the court of first instance to the bank in satisfying the counterclaim, – the borrower’s demand for the recognition of the mortgage agreement as invalid was recognized as justified.

The court decided that, indeed, the plaintiff had been deceived about the essential terms of the contract, the price and the interest rate, and therefore her expression of will to conclude an agreement in the form and in the amount established after the examination of the contract contradicted her desire to conclude an agreement on such conditions.

In particular, the court noted that the following points were not recorded in the agreement:

  • the consequences of the onset of currency risks;
  • inflationary warning;
  • calculations of the indexation of inflationary costs;
  • the reasons for the occurrence of the mortgage debt;

The court of appeal took the side of the bank, the cassation agreed with its conclusions!

The borrower was told that prior to the signing of the agreement, she had the opportunity to get acquainted with the information, disagree with the terms and not sign the agreement. The fact of signing documents according to the law is a fact confirming her consent in this case!



The case was considered by the Supreme Court of Ukraine

The Supreme Court of Ukraine did not allow the bank to prohibit its debtors from leaving Ukraine, since the CPCU does not have such a measure to secure claims as a temporary restriction of the right to travel abroad, even if a foreclosure procedure has been started with respect to mortgage property. Brief overview of […]

Successful litigation strategy of protection in case of drink driving

Professional legal aid often ensures successful appeals against the decision of the first instance court. See for yourself how events can develop with one fresh example. The pensioner, a disabled person of the III group, was threatened with a fine in the amount of UAH 10 200.00 and deprivation of a driver’s license for a […]

Had delayed paying severance pay? Pay the fine!

The first thing every citizen leaving his old place of work thinks about is how much money will fall on the card as a severance pay. Naturally, he wants more and that’s okay! The employer who signs the dismissal order is thinking about how to pay less! And he can be understood too! But, the […]

Civil marriage: showdown because of the apartment bought in it

Family showdown is an eternal topic! Even the array of family legislation and court practice accumulated over decades does not contain answers to all questions regarding family relations! The Supreme Court once again had to figure out whether or not the testimonies of witnesses certified by a notary are considered legal confirmation of a civil […]

Video cameras “looking” at neighbors violate their rights

There is a proverb that says that God sees everything, and neighbors –  even more! So and there is! And in some cases it happens literally. The story about neighbors who installed video cameras aimed at the neighbor’s yard ended in the Supreme Court with a legal conclusion in case No. 279/2012/17 of 03/03/2020. So, […]

Ukrainian courts are cutting lawyer fees to the maximum

Every self-respecting judge considers it his duty to reduce the lawyer’s fee as much as possible. This “phenomenon” is especially painful for lawyers working on an hourly basis. Why is that? God only knows! God knows, but for human rights defenders – absolutely incomprehensible, because the law and practice of the Armed Forces of Ukraine […]