+38 (044) 227 09 93
+38 (044) 234 52 42
+38 (063) 526 00 05
+38 (066) 476 00 05
+38 (096) 921 00 05
[email protected]

We will contact you within 2 minutes
02.08.2019

Lawyers of ILC “KODEX” proved the groundlessness of the claim of “Privatbank” to the guarantor under the loan agreement.

THANKS TO THE EFFORTS OF KODEX LAWYERS, HEADED BY ROMAN BONATSKY, THE COURT OF APPEAL REVERSED THE DECISION, ON WHICH OUR CLIENT WAS OBLIGED TO PAY MORE THAN HALF A MILLION UAH.

The client needed help with releasing of the seizure from his accounts and property. After several requests of the attorney, it turned out that seizure was imposed as a part of the enforcement procedures, which was commenced by unlawful decision of the Solomenskiy District Court of Kyiv. 

KODEX lawyers have carried out a preliminary analysis of the case and appealed against the mentioned decision.

Kyiv Court of Appeal in resolution dated 10.07.2019 canceled specified illegal decision, and passed a new decision, in which was stated that the satisfaction of the claims of the Open Joint-Stock Company Commercial Bank Privatbank should be refused in full.

 Our legal position was as follows:

1.  The violation of material and procedural law.

The conditions of conducting the proceedings had not been met in the first instance court, that caused violation of the principle of justice and impartiality of litigation, completeness of the examination of evidence and an adversarial principle.

Also during hearing of this case our client hadn’t been properly informed about the date of the hearing. It caused that our client had been unable to be present at the hearing, provide evidence and protect his rights and interests.

2.  The bailment agreement, concluded with our client is terminated.

The duration of the bailment agreement hadn’t been identified, during examination of this case.

At the time when a lawsuit was filed, under the provisions of Civil Code of Ukraine, in the relevant edition, the bailment shall be terminated after expiration of the term specified in the bailment agreement. The creditor has only six month to raise a claim, since the term of principal obligation should be fulfilled.

3. Findings of the first instance court were opposite to the real facts of the case.

The calculation, provided by the bank, in order to confirm claims, contravenes the terms of the loan agreement, according to which, the absence of debt on principal of the loan automatically indicates the absence of debt on interest and fine.  

Mentioned resolution enters into force on the day of its adoption, and cannot be subject to appeal under the cassation procedure.

Are you still paying money because of unreasonable banks’ lawsuits?