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:
“On claims for foreclosure on the subject of a mortgage, the court fee is calculated based on the value of the pledged property, and not on the amount of the debt obligation!” – expressed the Supreme Court of Ukraine by the decision on the case No. 307/23/18 dated 02.10.19. The conclusion was made after considering […]
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 […]
Judges, lawyers and justice officials love money too! Sometimes they use their connections and powers to improve their financial well-being! Some find themselves a lucrative “hobby”, for example, they are engaged in raiding. SBU officers uncovered a criminal scheme carried out by “raiders in court robes” with the help of lawyers and former employees of […]
On 11.09.19, the Supreme Court of Ukraine considered case No. 554/10202/13-c, in which the heir – the son from the first marriage of the deceased homeowner tried to defend his father’s apartment, sold by his second wife during her husband’s life and by his power of attorney to her own son. He insisted that there […]
The most useful legal opinion of the Supreme Court of Ukraine in case No. 761/22755/18 of 06.11.2019 – legal assistance (consultation), a life story about how the bank failed to evict a defaulting borrower from a mortgage apartment “to nowhere”! Background of the proceedings The bank applied to the court with a claim for eviction […]
The CCU, by its decision on the constitutional complaint in case No. 6-r(II)/2019 of 09/04/2019, categorically “forbade” employers to fire their employees who are on vacation or do not work due to temporary disability! At the same time, the KSU noted that the situation absolutely cannot be influenced by the fact that the labor relations […]
Entrust the settlement of legal disputes to the SPEAKER team of professionals! Get the highest level of legal services.
Мы готовы приступить к обсуждению Вашей задачи. Вскоре с Вами свяжемся.Back