June 2013
NEWSLETTER

Developments in Court Practice

1. Termination of surety agreement (Supreme Court's judgment dated 5 June 2013 in case No. 6-43φρ13)

In accordance with civil law suretyship is terminated in case the obligation is changed without the consent of the surety in consequence whereof the volume of the surety's obligation is increased.

A person may be a participant of the commercial company which has concluded a credit agreement and at the same time acts as a surety of this company to this agreement. In such a case the consent given by this person as a participant of the company during the voting at the meeting of participants to the change in the interest rate and other obligations of the company under the agreement does not serve as evidence of his/her consent as a surety to the increase in the volume of his/her responsibility, therefore the suretyship shall terminate.

Therefore, the consent of the surety to the increase in the volume of his/her responsibility shall be evident and given in the way provided for by the surety agreement.

2. On 1 July 2013 the Law of Ukraine "On Introducing Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine Regarding Elimination of Restrictions in the Conduct of Business Activity" aimed at limiting interference in the activities of commercial entities was brought into effect.

The Law introduces amendments, inter alia, to the Law of Ukraine "On the Principles of State Supervision (Control) in Commercial Activity Sphere" and the Code of Administrative Court Procedure. In particular, it is provided that the state supervision (control) authority shall file an action with an administrative court not later than the next working day upon the issuance (adoption) of respective executive document on the adoption of response measures, which justification shall be confirmed by the administrative court.

Such measures shall not be applied and respective executive document shall be subject to immediate cancellation in case:

  • the authority has not filed relevant action with an administrative court within the specified term;
  • the ruling on the return of the action to the authority has entered into force;
  • the judgment rejecting confirmation to justify the adoption of response measures or the one on absence of grounds to justify such measures has entered into force;
  • within 30 working days upon the issuance (adoption) of respective executive document on the adoption of response measures their justification has not been confirmed by the administrative court judgment in force.



For further information please contact
senior associate Andriy Pozhidayev and associate Anna Kozhemyachenko

© Asters 2013
Web-site  |  Contacts