Subject of the Dispute: Claim by PERSON_1 against PJSC “Terra Bank” on consumer rights protection.
Main Arguments of the Court: The Supreme Court established that the courts of previous instances incorrectly closed the proceedings in the case, as they did not investigate the circumstances of legal succession of PJSC “Terra Bank”. In particular, it was established that PJSC “Transitional Bank ‘Crystalbank'” is the legal successor of PJSC “Terra Bank” in terms of assets and liabilities, as evidenced by the transfer and acceptance act dated December 22, 2014. The courts of previous instances did not verify these circumstances and prematurely closed the proceedings.
Court Decision: The Supreme Court revoked the ruling of the Pechersk District Court and the resolution of the Kyiv Court of Appeal, referring the case for a new review to the court of first instance.
