{"id":7090,"date":"2025-03-21T09:31:08","date_gmt":"2025-03-21T07:31:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/03\/case-no-207-5073-21-dated-26-02-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-03-21T09:31:08","modified_gmt":"2025-03-21T07:31:08","slug":"case-no-207-5073-21-dated-26-02-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/03\/case-no-207-5073-21-dated-26-02-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 207\/5073\/21 dated 26\/02\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the translation of the legal analysis:<\/p>\n<p>1. Subject of Dispute: Recognition of the mortgagee&#8217;s (PrivatBank) right to real estate and foreclosure of the mortgaged property due to the debtor&#8217;s failure to fulfill credit obligations.<\/p>\n<p>2. Main Arguments of the Court:<br \/>\n&#8211; The credit agreement from 2007 remains valid, the debtor has not fulfilled their obligations<br \/>\n&#8211; Alienation of property occurred without the bank&#8217;s consent, which indicates the bad faith of the defendants<br \/>\n&#8211; The mortgage remains valid regardless of changes in property ownership<br \/>\n&#8211; The bank became aware of the violation of its rights only in September 2021, therefore the lawsuit was filed in a timely manner<\/p>\n<p>3. Court Decision: To refer the case for a new review to the appellate court for additional examination of the circumstances of debt calculation.<\/p>\n<p>Note: The court deviates from previous practice regarding the assessment of statute of limitations and debt calculation.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/125876189\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Here is the translation of the legal analysis: 1. Subject of Dispute: Recognition of the mortgagee&#8217;s (PrivatBank) right to real estate and foreclosure of the mortgaged property due to the debtor&#8217;s failure to fulfill credit obligations. 2. Main Arguments of the Court: &#8211; The credit agreement from 2007 remains valid, the debtor has not fulfilled&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"pmpro_default_level":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[57,42],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7090","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-court-practice-ukraine","category-eu-legislation-important","pmpro-has-access"],"acf":{"patreon-level":0},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7090","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7090"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7090\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7090"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7090"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7090"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}