{"id":7767,"date":"2025-04-03T10:27:04","date_gmt":"2025-04-03T07:27:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/04\/case-no-755-12569-22-dated-19-03-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-04-03T10:27:04","modified_gmt":"2025-04-03T07:27:04","slug":"case-no-755-12569-22-dated-19-03-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/04\/case-no-755-12569-22-dated-19-03-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 755\/12569\/22 dated 19\/03\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Recovery of debt under a credit agreement from a bank client, which arose as a result of fraudulent transactions with her bank card.<\/p>\n<p>Main Arguments of the Court:<\/p>\n<p>1. The Supreme Court established that the bank did not prove the client&#8217;s guilt in the loss or disclosure of personal data that allowed fraudulent transactions to be carried out.<\/p>\n<p>2. The client is not liable for transactions made without her physical presence and without electronic identification, as the bank did not provide irrefutable evidence of her involvement in the fraud.<\/p>\n<p>3. The mere fact of correct data entry during transactions cannot automatically indicate the client&#8217;s guilt.<\/p>\n<p>Court Decision: The Supreme Court completely overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the first instance court to refuse to recover the debt from the bank client.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/reyestr.court.gov.ua\/Review\/126182541\"><strong>Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Subject of Dispute: Recovery of debt under a credit agreement from a bank client, which arose as a result of fraudulent transactions with her bank card. Main Arguments of the Court: 1. The Supreme Court established that the bank did not prove the client&#8217;s guilt in the loss or disclosure of personal data that allowed&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-7767","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\/7767","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=7767"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7767\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7767"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7767"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7767"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}