Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer
Ваш AI помічникНовий чат
    Open chat icon

    Case No. 199/9720/22 dated 06/10/2026

    1. **Subject Matter of the Dispute:** The dispute concerns the recovery of debt under a loan agreement after the creditor had already enforced a foreclosure on the mortgaged property through an extrajudicial procedure.

    2. **Court Arguments:**
    – The Supreme Court emphasized that upon completion of the extrajudicial settlement (the mortgagee acquiring ownership of the mortgaged property), any further claims by the creditor against the debtor regarding the performance of the principal obligation are invalid.
    – The Court stressed that an extrajudicial foreclosure on the subject of the mortgage automatically satisfies all claims of the creditor, regardless of whether the value of the property covers the full amount of the debt.
    – The Court of Appeal erroneously held that the parties had extended the validity of the loan agreement through “conclusive actions” (subsequent payments), as such actions do not override the mandatory provision of law regarding the termination of an obligation after a mortgage foreclosure.
    – The Court also deemed the appellate court’s reference to another court case concerning an invalid deed of gift to be erroneous, as it did not pertain to the debtor’s rights in the present dispute.
    – Regarding the debtor’s claim for the return of funds paid after the mortgage foreclosure (as unjustly acquired), the Supreme Court upheld the refusal, as the debtor had made these payments voluntarily while being aware of their intended purpose.
    – **Conclusion:** The Court reaffirmed its position, relying on the findings of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of February 22, 2022 (Case No. 761/36873/18), which confirms the consistency of the practice regarding the invalidity of creditor claims following the completion of an extrajudicial mortgage foreclosure.

    3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court partially granted the debtor’s cassation appeal, overturned the appellate court’s resolution regarding the debt recovery, and upheld the court of first instance’s decision declaring the obligation under the loan agreement terminated.

    Full text by link

    Leave a comment

    E-mail
    Password
    Confirm Password
    Lexcovery
    Privacy Overview

    This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.