The Supreme Court refused to allow the bank to close the case of insolvency of an individual

The Supreme Court, as a panel of judges of the Economic Cassation Court, put an end to the dispute regarding the possibility of closing the proceedings in the case of insolvency of an individual. In case No. 921/562/22, the court refused the bank to satisfy the cassation appeal and confirmed the legality of the decisions of the courts of previous instances.

The dispute arose after the creditor bank applied to the court with a demand to close the proceedings in the insolvency case, referring to allegedly incomplete and unreliable information in the debtor’s declarations of property status.

However, the courts established that even at the stage of debt restructuring, the arbitration manager conducted a full check of the submitted declarations. For this purpose, requests were sent to state bodies and registers, and the results of the check were formalized in a corresponding report. No signs of concealment of property or unreliability of information were detected.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the issue of the reliability of the declarations had already been the subject of judicial review and had received a proper legal assessment. It was on the basis of these conclusions that the court had previously moved from the restructuring procedure to the debt repayment procedure and declared the debtor bankrupt.

In its ruling, the Court noted that the creditor cannot re-initiate a review of the already established circumstances only by filing a motion to close the proceedings. Since the relevant court decisions have entered into force and have not been appealed in accordance with the established procedure, they remain binding on all participants in the process.

Separately, the Supreme Court drew attention to the fact that the bank did not appeal the actions of the arbitration manager during the debt repayment procedure and did not prove the presence of new circumstances that could affect the course of the case.

Thus, the bank’s cassation appeal was dismissed, and the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances were left unchanged.

The Supreme Court’s ruling once again confirmed the principle of legal certainty: circumstances that have already been duly verified and assessed by the court cannot become the subject of re-examination without the presence of new, compelling grounds.