Here is a detailed analysis of this court decision:
1. The subject of the dispute is the legality of a bank’s refusal to disburse funds under a bank deposit agreement to a person who acquired the right to said deposit via a deed of gift of property rights, concluded with the depositor prior to their death.
2. The Supreme Court, sitting as the Joint Chamber, concluded that a depositor’s right under a bank deposit agreement is a property-based contractual right of claim, which may serve as an independent object of civil commerce and the subject of a deed of gift. The Court emphasized that the gifting of a right to a deposit constitutes a gratuitous alienation of property rights, which complies with the principle of party autonomy. Consequently, the lower courts erroneously equated “money as a tangible thing” with a “property right of claim against a bank,” which led to an incorrect conclusion regarding the necessity of including the deposit in the decedent’s estate. The Supreme Court underscored that private law should not create artificial obstacles to the exercise of an acquired property right, even if the donor has passed away. In this regard, the Joint Chamber formally departed from the legal position set forth in the Supreme Court resolution of May 15, 2019, in case No. 700/2095/15, which previously held that such a deed of gift is a real contract and cannot be executed if the funds are already under the management of the bank.
3. The Court decided to set aside the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and remit the case for a new trial to the court of first instance to establish all factual circumstances of the case, taking into account the expressed legal position.
