1. **Subject Matter of the Dispute:** The subject matter of the dispute is the invalidation of an agreement on the assignment of rights of claim under credit agreements and a commission agreement concluded during the liquidation of a bank.
2. **Arguments of the Court:**
* The Court emphasized that for an appeal to be filed by a person who did not participate in the case, it is necessary to prove that the court decision directly decides on their rights, interests, or obligations.
* The Supreme Court, referring to its jurisprudence (in particular, the position of the Grand Chamber dated 04.03.2026), distinguished between the concepts of “deciding on a person’s rights” and “indirect interest.”
* The Court noted that the mere presence of conclusions in the reasoning part of a decision regarding a person’s actions does not constitute grounds for recognizing the decision as one rendered concerning their rights if there is no direct adjudication regarding that person in the operative part.
* The Court of Appeal committed an error by involving the Fund and PERSON_1 in the case without proper justification of how exactly the first-instance court’s decision directly affected their rights.
* The Court emphasized that the potential impact of the outcome of the dispute on future legal relations (e.g., recourse claims) is not identical to deciding on a person’s rights within the meaning of procedural law.
* Consequently, the Court of Appeal should have first verified the appellants’ right to file an appeal, rather than reviewing the case on its merits without proper procedural verification.
* The Court in this case directly refers to the fact that it takes into account the position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, which departed from previous conclusions regarding the criteria for defining a decision as one rendered regarding the rights and obligations of a person who did not participate in the case.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the Court of Appeal and the orders involving third parties, remanding the case for a new consideration to the court of appeal for the proper procedural resolution of the issue regarding the existence of the appellants’ right to file an appeal.
