Greetings. As a lawyer with many years of experience, I have analyzed the court decision you provided. Here is a brief analysis for your material:
1. **Subject of the dispute:** Invalidation of gift and sale-purchase agreements for real estate, which the plaintiff considers fraudulent (executed by the debtor for the purpose of evading the fulfillment of obligations to a creditor).
2. **Court’s arguments:**
* The court emphasized that private law instruments cannot be used to avoid debt repayment, and any legal transaction of a debtor that leads to their insolvency must be called into question.
* **Legal position:** The Supreme Court emphasized that it is departing from its previous position (specifically, by clarifying the conclusion of the Grand Chamber of July 3, 2019, in case No. 369/11268/16), confirming the creditor’s right to challenge the debtor’s transactions based on the general principles of good faith and the prohibition of abuse of rights.
* The court noted that the actual execution of a transaction (transfer of property) does not exclude its fraudulent nature if the purpose was the withdrawal of assets.
* The appellate court mistakenly limited itself only to a formal verification of the reality of the concluded agreements, without properly investigating the existence of the debtor’s intent to harm the creditor.
* The court also pointed to the need to maintain a balance of interests and proportionality of interference with property rights, especially regarding the good faith of the property acquirer.
* Since the appellate court did not establish all the factual circumstances regarding the fraudulent nature of the agreements, the case must be re-examined.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the appellate court and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance.
