1. The subject of the dispute is the application of “Trading House Techcomplect” LLC for securing a claim before filing a statement of claim by prohibiting the bank from making payments under bank guarantees in favor of “Ukrtransgaz” JSC.
2. The court of cassation instance agreed with the appellate court, pointing out that there is no connection between the subject of the claim (“Ukrtransgaz” JSC’s obligation to accept the goods and amend the contract) and the declared measures to secure the claim (prohibition of the bank from making payments under guarantees), since the plaintiff is challenging not the guarantees, but the relations under the contract. The court noted that the bank’s fulfillment of obligations under the guarantee does not affect the rights and obligations of the plaintiff, since it is not a party to these guarantee transactions. In addition, the court indicated that the prohibition of the bank from making payments under guarantees is an interference in the bank’s economic activity and does not meet the requirements of reasonableness, justification, adequacy and balance of the parties’ interests. The court also emphasized that securing a claim should be aimed at protecting the violated right of the plaintiff, and not at creating unreasonable obstacles to the activities of other participants in the process.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of “Trading House Techcomplect” LLC and upheld the decision of the appellate court.
**Note:** In the decision, the court departed from the previous conclusions of the Supreme Court, set forth in the resolutions of September 27, 2024 in case No. 910/7489/24, of November 4, 2024 in case No. 910/7487/24, of November 6, 2024 in case No. 910/7485/24 and of November 6, 2024 in case No. 910/7486/24, by specifying them, indicating that the prohibition of the bank from making any payments under bank guarantees for any claims of the beneficiary is an interference in the bank’s economic activity.
