Here is a detailed analysis of the court judgment in case No. 404/193/22:
1. The subject matter of the dispute is the foreclosure on a mortgaged property (an apartment) to satisfy a debt under a loan agreement concluded in foreign currency.
2. In rendering its decision, the Supreme Court held that the lower courts had erroneously equated the moratorium on the enforcement of judgments with the suspension of the statute of limitations. The Court emphasized that the moratorium only temporarily restricted the compulsory alienation of property but did not deprive the creditor of the right to file a lawsuit; therefore, the statute of limitations did not stop running. Furthermore, the Court highlighted that the bank’s filing of a lawsuit for the early repayment of the loan in 2010 altered the time for performance of the obligation, which is crucial for calculating the statute of limitations. It was also noted that, upon the issuance of a demand for early repayment of funds, the creditor’s right to accrue interest and penalties under the agreement terminates. Since the lower courts failed to properly assess the arguments regarding the expiration of the statute of limitations and the accuracy of the debt calculation, their decisions cannot be considered lawful. The Supreme Court in this case reaffirmed its position that the moratorium does not suspend the statute of limitations, citing its own practice from 2025, and pointed to the necessity of considering the Grand Chamber’s conclusions regarding the cessation of interest accrual following a demand for early loan repayment.
3. The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
