“Clarity in the Legal Opinion.” A Commentary on Whether a “New Creditor” Acquires the Status of a “Recoverer” in the Open Enforcement Proceedings
Author: Aleksandr VOVK, Partner, Director of the Legal Department of JSC Colares
Especially for Legal Practice, No. 36
In my article for Legal Practice No. 33 dated August 14, 2018, despite my skepticism about another judicial reform in Ukraine, I still emphasized the introduction of a quasi-precedent principle as its positive point. After all, if the legislation is developed clearly and there is an absolute clarity in the position of the Supreme Court (SC), the interested parties are deprived of the opportunity to “twist the laws,” manipulate them, and make corrupt arrangements. In my opinion, it is also a long but effective evolutionary method of fighting corruption.
As one of the examples of the SC position in this matter, I can cite the judgment of the SC from April 25, 2018. The Supreme Court, consisting of the panel of judges of the Second Trial Chamber of the Civil Court of Cassation, examined as part of Case No. 2-n-148/09, Proceedings No. 61-1104sv18 (USRCD No. 73627702), the matter of replacing the party to enforcement proceedings by its successor. The SC judgment granted the petition of the plaintiff (the applicant party) to replace him in the enforcement proceedings in connection with the transition to him (the applicant party) of a right of the monetary claim under the loan agreement and changed the court order recoverer.