Here is a detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared from a professional perspective:
1. **Subject Matter of the Dispute:** Declaring a deed of gift for an apartment, concluded between a debtor and their relative, invalid as a fraudulent transaction committed for the purpose of evading the execution of a court judgment on the recovery of credit debt.
2. **Main Arguments of the Court:**
* The court confirmed that a transaction committed by a debtor during the existence of an unfulfilled monetary obligation, which renders the debtor insolvent, bears the characteristics of fraudulence (committed to the detriment of a creditor).
* The Supreme Court referred to the position of the Grand Chamber dated February 4, 2026 (Case No. 910/6654/24), which specified that a plaintiff who was not a party to a transaction has the right to challenge it based on the general principles of civil legislation regarding good faith and the prohibition of abuse of rights.
* The court emphasized that the gratuitous alienation of property to a close relative after the issuance of a court decision on debt recovery objectively testifies to the debtor’s bad faith.
* At the same time, the court pointed out that the existence of a mortgage on other property does not deprive a creditor of the right to question the alienation of other real estate belonging to the debtor, if such action impedes the execution of the court judgment.
* A key procedural error by the appellate court was ignoring the defendant’s motion regarding the application of the statute of limitations.
* Since the appellate court failed to assess the arguments regarding the expiration of the statute of limitations, the Supreme Court recognized this as a violation of procedural law, which made it impossible to establish the factual circumstances of the case.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that it is precluded from establishing these circumstances independently; therefore, the case requires a retrial.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court vacated the resolution of the appellate court and remanded the case to the court of appeal for a new trial.
