The Civil Court of Cassation overturned the decision of the appellate court and upheld the decision of the court of first instance in case No. 490/7829/23 regarding the claim of JSC CB "PrivatBank" to collect credit debt. This was reported by "Law and Business".
The essence of the dispute was that the bank demanded to recover more than 68 thousand hryvnias of loan debt from the client. The court of first instance satisfied the claim only partially, determining the amount of 4732.86 hryvnias to be recovered, but refused to recover interest. In addition, it took into account that more than 69 thousand hryvnias were debited from the defendant's account in May 2022 as a result of an unauthorized transaction. The bank did not prove the client's guilt in this incident.
The Court of Appeal came to the opposite conclusion, recognizing that the user, by his actions or inaction, contributed to the illegal use of the PIN code or other data. The basis was a reference to a recording of a conversation with a hotline operator, where the client allegedly admitted to transmitting the password from the electronic account.
However, the CCS emphasized: the mere fact of correctly entering the initial data for the transaction cannot automatically indicate the client's guilt. In the absence of irrefutable evidence, doubts are interpreted in favor of the consumer, because he is the "weak party" in the legal relationship with the bank.
The court also emphasized that the bank should have provided all the relevant evidence in the court of first instance. Instead, in the appeal, it referred to circumstances that it had previously denied, which contradicts the principles of good faith and the prohibition of contradictory behavior. In addition, the appellate court's consideration of new evidence without its proper disclosure was recognized as a violation of procedural rules.
Thus, the Supreme Court confirmed: the responsibility for the security of transactions lies primarily with the bank, and doubts about the client's guilt cannot be attributed to him without proper evidentiary basis.
