Good day! I will gladly analyze this court decision for you.
1. The subject of the dispute is the recognition of a bank guarantee as not subject to execution, due to the allegedly improper performance by the contractor of its obligations under the contract for the procurement of works.
2. The court of cassation instance, overturning the decision of the appellate court, drew attention to the fact that the method of protection chosen by the plaintiff (recognition of the guarantee as not subject to execution) is appropriate only in the event that there is ongoing legal uncertainty regarding the recovery of amounts secured by the guarantee, and the creditor has not initiated relevant disputes. The court emphasized that the appellate court should have clarified whether there is ongoing legal uncertainty regarding the recovery of amounts secured by the guarantee, whether relevant disputes were initiated, and, depending on this, establish whether the method of protection chosen by the plaintiff is appropriate. The court also noted that the grounds for paying a sum of money under the guarantee are not any violations of the terms of the contract, but specifically the existence of unfulfilled obligations for which the guarantee was provided, directly stipulated by the terms of the contract. Since the appellate court did not clarify these circumstances, it prematurely dismissed the claim on the grounds of unsubstantiated claims on the merits. The court took into account the conclusions set out in the decision of the Supreme Court of January 28, 2025, in case No. 910/16479/23, the full text of which was published after the filing of the cassation appeal in case No. 911/3602/21.
3. The court decided to overturn the decision of the appellate court and send the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance.
