Here is a detailed analysis of the decision, as you requested:
1. The subject of the dispute is the foreclosure of mortgaged property due to non-performance of the loan agreement terms.
2. The appellate court reversed the decision of the court of first instance, which had granted the claim for foreclosure of the mortgaged property, on the grounds that the plaintiffs had missed the statute of limitations for filing such a claim with the court, since the loan repayment period expired on September 5, 2011, and they filed the claim for foreclosure of the mortgage only on July 21, 2021. The Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court’s conclusion to deny the claim due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, but noted that the appellate court was partially mistaken in the reasons for such decision, as it failed to consider that the loan repayment period was extended until September 5, 2016, and also incorrectly applied the rules on the interruption of the statute of limitations. The Supreme Court emphasized that the interruption of the statute of limitations for the principal obligation (loan agreement) does not interrupt the statute of limitations for another, security obligation (mortgage), as these are different claims, and referred to the conclusion of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dated June 14, 2023, which departed from the previous position on this issue.
3. The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal, amending the reasoning part of the appellate court’s ruling, but left unchanged the decision to deny the claim and the additional ruling on the allocation of court costs.
