Here is the translation:
1. Subject of Dispute: Recovery of debt under a credit agreement and challenging the legitimacy of collecting commissions for providing a financial instrument.
2. Key Arguments of the Court:
The Supreme Court established that at the time of concluding the credit agreement (2006), legislation did not contain a direct prohibition on establishing commissions for providing financial services. The Court noted that it is impossible to apply legal norms that came into effect later (in 2011) to legal relations that arose earlier. This is a fundamentally important conclusion about the non-retroactivity of legislative acts.
3. Court Decision: The Supreme Court partially satisfied PrivatBank’s cassation appeal and referred the case for a new review to the appellate court for additional examination of the circumstances of collecting commissions for providing a financial instrument.
