By its decision in case No. 342/180/17 of 03/07/19, the BC-Supreme Court of Ukraine “broke” the established judicial practice on the collection of overdue debt on PrivatBank credit cards!
From this date, the terms and conditions for the provision of banking services posted on the pages of the PrivatBank website:
The reason for the formation of a completely new approach to the consideration of such disputes was the case of a PrivatBank client!
She, not wanting to pay an exorbitantly large fine, challenged the legality of the terms and conditions of the site, as part of a loan agreement concluded by signing an application form, in which there was not a word about % for the use of funds and about liability in the form of a penalty (penalty) for violation terms of fulfillment of obligations.
“The subject of the proceedings was the collection of debt in favor of the bank under a loan agreement by the respondent signing an application form for joining the Terms and Conditions for the provision of banking services, on the basis of which a loan (credit limit) in the amount of UAH 20,000 was obtained.”
The bank went to court to solve the problem with late repayment of the debt!
In the statement of claim, he asked to recover from the debtor almost 50 thousand hryvnyas, of which: 16 thousand – the debt on the body of the loan, 5 thousand -% for use and almost 27 thousand of penalties and fines.
The court of first instance, together with the appeal, satisfied the bank’s claim in part!
Were recovered: the body of the loan, interest and a reduced portion of the penalty. The court reasoned the decision simply: “The money was received, but not returned, therefore, it is subject to collection, with the exception of a penalty that is greater than the debt itself”!
The cassation consideration changed the judicial practice in such cases!
BC-SCU took as a basis the argument of the bank’s client that she did not sign the Terms and Conditions, on the basis of which the bank can independently establish and change the credit limit and credit conditions.
The SCU established the following:
These facts, taken together and separately, indicate the need to improve the mechanism for protecting consumer rights through the courts in this area of credit legal relations.
Therefore, BC – Supreme Court of Ukraine canceled the decisions of the courts of the previous instances!
Only the principal amount remained subject to collection, since:
The Supreme Court of Ukraine considered the case on the eviction of the former owner (debtor of the bank) from the apartment purchased (by the new owner). A relevant legal conclusion has been published, informative for real estate buyers and bank borrowers. Thus, a new non-owner who has bought “risky” real estate from a mortgagee […]
They wanted to save money, but it turned out the other way around. The couple built a house in which they planned to live happily ever after, but the family union fell apart … In court, the question arose of how to divide the house, which, as it turned out, cannot be divided due to […]
The Supreme Court of Ukraine considered case No. 699/640/18 (production No. 61-17310sv19) and on 04.12.2019 formed a legal conclusion, which “put in place” the employer who dismissed the employee under the “absenteeism” article. He counted as a truancy the day when she underwent a medical examination. DETAILS OF THE PROCEEDINGS The military unit’s employee filed […]
On October 23, 2019, the Supreme Court of Ukraine in case No. 522/6582/16-c published a legal conclusion regarding the wrongness of the bank, which was collecting funds to pay off the loan debt under a non-existent loan agreement. Details of the proceedings A citizen-former employee of the bank went to court with a claim against […]
Is the transfer of leased land to sublease without the consent of the owner legal? If so, in what cases? If not, when? What does the law tell us about this and how are litigations resolved between the parties to such legal relations, which, due to ignorance of regulatory rules, violate the law? Thus, lease-contractual […]
By decision in case No. 202/3788 / 18 of 04.08.2020, the Supreme Court of Ukraine stopped the family showdown regarding the shopping pavilion, which the spouses had been sharing for several years. The court determined that the trade tent is movable property, transactions in respect of which are not subject to state registration, but it […]
Entrust the settlement of legal disputes to the SPEAKER team of professionals! Get the highest level of legal services.
We are ready to start discussing your task. We will contact you shortly.Back