1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of debt under a loan agreement between individuals.
2. The court of cassation instance, overturning the decision of the appellate court, noted that securing the claim by prohibiting the alienation of property does not violate the rights of the mortgagee, since the mortgage retains its priority. The court emphasized that the purpose of securing the claim is to protect the plaintiff’s interests from the defendant’s bad faith actions, and in this case, restricting the defendant’s rights as the property owner does not change the essence of the mortgage. The court also took into account that the mortgagee did not prove the existence of grounds for foreclosure on the subject of the mortgage. In addition, the court referred to the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, which indicates that securing a claim is possible even in cases where decisions are not subject to compulsory enforcement, if it contributes to the effective protection of the plaintiff’s rights. The Court refers to the resolution of the Joint Chamber of the Supreme Court dated May 5, 2025, which states that the imposition of an arrest on mortgaged property does not deprive the creditor of the right to satisfy their claims in the future.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the ruling of the court of first instance on securing the claim.
