Which is proposed to be satisfied by the contested
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2025 10:14 am
Thus, the lender is entitled to exercise his right under Part Two of Article 1050 of the Civil Code of Ukraine to early repayment of the remaining part of the loan and payment of interest due to him in accordance with Article 1048 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, both by filing a pre-trial claim and a judicial claim.
Therefore, the Bank, having filed the specified pre-trial claim, loses the right to charge interest on the loan provided for in the loan agreement.
However, from the calculation of the debt under the loan agreement, special database provided by the bank to the notary to confirm the amount of the loan debt, it is seen that the bank has accrued interest for the period after the pre-trial claim was presented to the borrower .
Therefore, the debt under the credit agreement,writ of execution, cannot be considered undisputed.
Therefore, when drawing up the contested enforcement order, the private notary did not properly verify the indisputability of the amounts subject to collection under the enforcement order.
Similar conclusions are set forth in the Supreme Court's resolution of April 26, 2023 in case No. 727/4121/21 (proceedings No. 61-1236св22).
CONCLUSION: Accruing interest for the period after the pre-trial claim is presented to the borrower will result in the absence of "undisputedness of the amount of debt", and therefore the notary's executive inscription is subject to recognition as unenforceable.
Therefore, the Bank, having filed the specified pre-trial claim, loses the right to charge interest on the loan provided for in the loan agreement.
However, from the calculation of the debt under the loan agreement, special database provided by the bank to the notary to confirm the amount of the loan debt, it is seen that the bank has accrued interest for the period after the pre-trial claim was presented to the borrower .
Therefore, the debt under the credit agreement,writ of execution, cannot be considered undisputed.
Therefore, when drawing up the contested enforcement order, the private notary did not properly verify the indisputability of the amounts subject to collection under the enforcement order.
Similar conclusions are set forth in the Supreme Court's resolution of April 26, 2023 in case No. 727/4121/21 (proceedings No. 61-1236св22).
CONCLUSION: Accruing interest for the period after the pre-trial claim is presented to the borrower will result in the absence of "undisputedness of the amount of debt", and therefore the notary's executive inscription is subject to recognition as unenforceable.