**1. Subject of the Dispute:**
The subject of the dispute is the invalidation of real estate gift agreements concluded between the debtor and a third party as fraudulent (concluded to the detriment of a creditor), and the cancellation of the corresponding registration actions.
**2. Court’s Arguments:**
* The Court, referring to the position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of February 4, 2026, departed from its previous conclusions and confirmed that a creditor has the right to challenge the debtor’s fraudulent transactions based on the general principles of good faith (Art. 3 of the Civil Code) and the prohibition of abuse of rights (Art. 13 of the Civil Code).
* The Court established that the debtor concluded the gift agreements during a period when they already had outstanding monetary obligations to the plaintiff and when the latter had already filed a lawsuit to recover the debt.
* The gratuitous nature of the gift agreements in favor of an acquaintance, in the absence of other property held by the debtor to settle the debt, indicates a deliberate evasion of the execution of a court decision.
* The Supreme Court emphasized that for a transaction to be qualified as fraudulent, the presence of seizures (attachments) on the property is not required; the main factor is the bad-faith purpose of the participants — the alienation of assets to avoid recovery.
* At the same time, the Court noted that the plaintiff did not make a claim for the return of property (restitution); therefore, the court of appeal, by obliging the defendant to return the property, exceeded the scope of the claims, violating the principle of disposition.
* Regarding court costs, the Court upheld the right of the appellate instance to reduce the amount of attorney’s fees if they are disproportionate to the complexity of the case and the volume of services rendered, even if the agreement provided for a higher amount.
**3. Court Decision:**
The Supreme Court partially granted the cassation appeal: it set aside the decision of the court of appeal regarding the obligation to return the property, and in all other respects (regarding the invalidation of the agreements and the distribution of legal aid costs), it left the decision unchanged.
