The Supreme Court sided with the borrower, finding the enforcement of a debt under an unproven loan to be unfounded.
The Supreme Court clarified its approach to disputes concerning credit obligations, ruling that the collection of debt from the borrower was unlawful in the absence of evidence confirming the conclusion of a loan agreement. Earlier, a district court had established that the bank failed to prove the issuance of the loan and the receipt of funds by the borrower; nevertheless, the credit institution continued to accrue penalties, reported the alleged “debt” to the credit bureau, and assigned the purported claim to a collection agency.
Despite this, the lower courts dismissed the claimant’s demands to recognize the bank’s actions as unlawful and to correct her credit history. By Ruling No. 41-KG25-88-K4 of 3 February 2026, the Supreme Court overturned those decisions, indicating that previously established facts in a dispute between the same parties (issue preclusion) must be taken into account and that it is impermissible to disregard a judicial act confirming the absence of any debt. The case has been remanded for reconsideration, and the Supreme Court’s position is intended to strengthen borrower protection against unjustified claims where credit obligations have not been proven.
