1. The subject of the dispute is an individual’s claim against a bank for the return of a bank deposit and accrued interest under bank deposit agreements.
2. The courts of previous instances dismissed the claim, reasoning that the bank deposit agreements provided by the plaintiff do not comply with the current form of the agreement, the interest rates do not match those approved by the bank’s tariff committee, the agreements are not serviced by the bank, and the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence of depositing funds into the deposit account. The Supreme Court disagreed with these conclusions, noting that the courts did not take into account the previous legal conclusions of the Supreme Court that non-compliance by authorized bank employees with the requirements of legislation in the field of banking and internal requirements of the bank cannot indicate non-compliance by the parties with the written form of the bank deposit agreement. Also, the Supreme Court emphasized that the written form of the bank deposit agreement is evidence not only of the fact of the conclusion of the agreement, but also of the fact of the transfer of the amount of money to the bank. The court also indicated that valid agreements create corresponding legal consequences for the parties.
3. The court of cassation overturned the appellate court’s ruling and remanded the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
**Note:** In this case, the Supreme Court departed from previous conclusions regarding the application of Articles 1058, 1059, 1064, 1065 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, as set forth in other rulings of the Supreme Court.
