Supreme Court of the Russian Federation resolved the dispute with the recovery of debt on bail

The Economic Board considered a case in which the bank demanded that the debt arising from the pledge agreement be included in the register of creditors’ claims. At the same time, the fact of non-payment and the existence of an obligation were previously recorded by a judicial act.

The creditor's application was satisfied by the court of first instance and the disputed amount was included in the register. However, the three of judges in the appeal doubted the fidelity of the adopted decision and canceled the judicial act. The reasoning part indicated that the applicant filed a claim outside the period of bail agreed upon by the parties. The fact was that the period specified in the main contract had indeed expired. The creditor was guided by the period specified in the supplementary agreement.

However, it had a drawback - when signing the document, the parties did not comply with the condition on the form and did not register the agreement, as was done with the main contract.

In such circumstances, the Court of Appeal considered the request for inclusion in the register of creditor’s claims unfounded and rejected the creditor’s claim. This position was upheld by the District Court.

However, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation reminded its colleagues of the general binding nature of the issued judicial acts. Thus, the Economic Board indicated that if the fact of the existence of a debt had already been established by a previously issued court order, which in turn entered into force, then it should have been applied to further legal relations of the parties.

In addition, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation recalled that the rule allowing the application of the rules on the expiration of the surety period for the purpose of terminating the obligation was adopted after the conclusion of the agreement (decision No. 308-ES20-18999 (2) dated January 20, 2022).