Here is the detailed analysis of the court decision, prepared in accordance with your requirements:<\/p>\n
1. **Subject Matter of the Dispute:** Recovery of debt under a loan agreement from the borrower\u2019s legal successors, including inflationary losses and 3% per annum calculated on the basis of Article 625 of the Civil Code of Ukraine following the adoption of a prior court decision on the recovery of the principal debt.<\/p>\n
2. **Court\u2019s Arguments:**
\n – The Supreme Court emphasized that after a decision on the early repayment of a loan is made, the contractual legal relationship transitions into a protective one; therefore, the bank loses the right to accrue contractual interest and penalties but retains the right to protect its interests via Article 625 of the Civil Code of Ukraine.
\n – The Court noted that the courts of lower instances erroneously denied the claim due to the alleged lack of proof regarding the issuance of the loan, ignoring the existence of a prior court decision that confirms the existence of the debt and legal succession.
\n – The Supreme Court, referring to the position of the Grand Chamber dated February 11, 2026, in case No. 754\/511\/23, departed from previous approaches, stating that in the event of missing the deadline for presenting an enforcement document for execution and the court\u2019s refusal to renew it, the claimant definitively loses the right to compulsory enforcement of the decision and, consequently, also loses the right to accrue 3% per annum and inflationary losses under Article 625 of the Civil Code of Ukraine.
\n – The Court emphasized that providing a claimant with the opportunity to continuously accrue inflationary losses on an “unenforceable” claim contradicts the principle of legal certainty.
\n – The courts of lower instances did not verify key circumstances: whether the writ of execution was under enforcement, whether the deadline for its presentation had been missed, and whether its renewal had been denied.
\n – The Supreme Court indicated that the courts did not provide a proper assessment of the personal account statements as evidence of the existence of the debt, which constitutes a violation of procedural norms.
\n – Since the courts did not establish the factual circumstances regarding the possibility of compulsory enforcement of the prior decision, the case must be remanded for a new trial to ascertain these legally significant facts.<\/p>\n
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court partially satisfied the cassation appeal, overturned the appellate court’s resolution, and remanded the case for a new trial to the court of appellate instance.<\/p>\n