Here is the detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your inquiry:
1. **Subject matter of the dispute:** The dispute concerns the lawfulness of the bank’s actions regarding the involuntary foreclosure on mortgaged property (an apartment) through extrajudicial registration of title in the name of the bank during the effective period of the moratorium on the foreclosure of property under foreign currency loans.
2. **Court arguments:**
* The court established that the plaintiff’s apartment falls under the Law of Ukraine “On the Moratorium on the Foreclosure of Property of Citizens of Ukraine Provided as Collateral for Foreign Currency Loans,” as its area does not exceed 140 sq.m., and the loan is a consumer loan denominated in foreign currency.
* The key issue was whether the plaintiff’s possession of other housing (a house in the city of Horlivka) constitutes grounds for lifting the moratorium, considering that this property is located in a temporarily occupied territory.
* **Legal position:** The Supreme Court, sitting as the Joint Chamber, officially departed from its previous position (specifically, the one set forth in case No. 522/18134/21), which formally limited the effect of the moratorium exclusively to the territory of Crimea and Sevastopol.
* The Court emphasized that the principle of reasonableness and the rule of law require the provisions of the moratorium to be interpreted as extending to all territories of Ukraine recognized as temporarily occupied, regardless of whether the Parliament managed to make technical amendments to the text of the law in a timely manner.
* The Court noted that the inability to actually use property located in an occupied territory means that a person effectively does not have any other housing; therefore, the moratorium continues to apply.
* Thus, the bank’s actions regarding the registration of title to the apartment in an extrajudicial manner were deemed unlawful, as they violate the mandatory prohibition established by law for the duration of the moratorium.
3. **Court decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the bank’s cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts to cancel the state registration of title in the name of the bank.
