A Kyiv resident demands 79,412 hryvnias from PrivatBank for an unjustified withdrawal of funds – this is the court's decision.

A woman is accusing PrivatBank of an unfounded withdrawal of funds from her account amounting to 57,032 hryvnias. She is demanding that the financial institution return the funds and also impose a penalty of 22,380 hryvnias. This was stated in the decision of the Pechersky District Court of Kyiv, published on September 25, 2024.

In December 2021, JSC CB "PrivatBank" filed a lawsuit against the woman, seeking to recover a debt under a loan agreement amounting to 57,131 hryvnias, which comprised 45,158 hryvnias principal debt and 11,973 hryvnias overdue interest. JSC CB "PrivatBank" referred to the fact that she had approached them for banking services, which led to the signing of an application dated 05.08.2014, under which she received funds in the form of an established credit limit on her payment card, with interest payable for the use of the loan. Due to her failure to fulfill the terms of the loan agreement, as of December 7, 2021, her debt amounted to 57,131 hryvnias. A decision by the Dniprovskiy District Court of Kyiv on September 26, 2022, in case No. 334/9823/21, partially satisfied the claim of JSC CB "PrivatBank". The court ordered the woman to pay the debt under the loan agreement dated 05.08.2014 as of December 7, 2021, in the amount of 45,158 hryvnias. The ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal on February 14, 2023, annulled the Dniprovskiy District Court's decision regarding the satisfaction of the claim for the recovery of the principal debt of 45,158 hryvnias.

The woman believes that the bank, in violation of the provisions of Article 1073 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, unjustifiably withdrew funds from her account in the amount of 57,032 hryvnias, as established by the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal on February 14, 2023, in case No. 334/9823/21.

"The plaintiff in her claim misrepresents the concept of 'establishing a prejudicial fact' and 'legal assessment provided by the court for a specific fact'. From the content of the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal dated February 14, 2023, in case No. 334/9823/21, she justifies the absence of an obligation for the unjustified acquisition of funds considering the existence of a court decision, which does not establish the fact of the unjust enrichment of the defendant. The fact that the plaintiff paid interest during the loan period, as can be seen from the account statements and debt calculations, is an act of consent to the bank's proposed loan conditions, including the amount of loan repayment. The plaintiff did not indicate on what legal basis, namely - which legal norm she relied upon in determining the penalty amount at the level of double the NBU discount rate, nor did she specify the legal norm that connects the accrual of penalties from February 14, 2023, to January 7, 2024, on the amount of 57,134 hryvnias," - stated PrivatBank.

What did the court decide?

The court granted the woman's claim. From the joint-stock company commercial bank "PrivatBank," 57,032 hryvnias of unjustifiably acquired funds and 22,380 hryvnias of penalty under the loan agreement dated 05.08.2014 will be recovered in her favor.

"The case materials show, according to the contents of the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal dated February 14, 2023, that according to the statement of the personal account as of December 9, 2021, in the column 'total receipts' it is indicated: 169,953 hryvnias, and 'total expenditures' - 227,085 hryvnias. As seen from the defendant's account statement, during the entire period of using the cards, she utilized credit funds through transactions and ATM withdrawals, using not only her own funds but also the credit limit provided by the bank. From August 5, 2014, to November 1, 2021, she actually received 91,493 hryvnias. In turn, according to her account statement from August 5, 2014, to November 1, 2021, she paid 148,526 hryvnias towards debt repayment. Considering the above, the appellate court believes that the principal debt (the loan amount) was repaid by the defendant in a greater amount (148,526 - 91,493 = 57,032 hryvnias) in favor of the plaintiff, therefore there are no grounds for satisfying the claims for the recovery of the principal debt," - emphasized the court.