Here is the translation:
Subject of Dispute: Recognition of Bank Guarantee as Non-Enforceable and Termination of Bank’s Obligations under the Guarantee.
Key Court Arguments:
1. The Bank (guarantor) does not have the right to assess the presence or absence of the principal’s obligation, but is obligated to pay under the guarantee if the claim corresponds to the guarantee conditions.
2. At the time of filing the lawsuit, there was already a court decision in case No. 910/3268/22, which partially satisfied the claim for recovery of funds under the same guarantee.
3. The method of protection chosen by the plaintiff (recognition of the guarantee as non-enforceable) is inappropriate and ineffective, as it creates legal uncertainty.
Court Decision: Reject the Bank’s claim. Cancel previous court decisions and adopt a new decision to reject the claim.
Note: The Supreme Court deviated from previous practice regarding the possibility of recognizing a bank guarantee as non-enforceable if a court proceeding for recovery of funds under the guarantee already exists.
