1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition as invalid of a clause of the loan agreement and the recovery of funds paid as a fee for the provision of a financial instrument.
2. The court of cassation overturned the decision of the court of appeal, emphasizing that the provisions of the loan agreement regarding the payment of commissions are void, since they contradict the legislation on consumer protection and banking activities. The court pointed out that the claim for recognition as invalid of a void transaction is an improper method of protection, since such a transaction is invalid by virtue of the law. The court departed from the previous position regarding the commencement of the statute of limitations in cases of void transactions, noting that the statute of limitations begins to run from the moment of commencement of performance of the void transaction, and not from the moment when the person learned about the violation of their rights. Since the plaintiff applied to the court outside the statute of limitations, the court of cassation decided to refuse to satisfy the claim for recovery of funds.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the court of appeal in the part of the satisfied claims and refused to satisfy the claim for recovery of funds.
