Judicial proceedings. Theory of everything Court decisions Cetelem bank
DEFINITION
November 24, 2017 The Reutov City Court of the Moscow Region, composed of: presiding judge M.V. Kornienko, with the secretary of the court session N.V. Denisenko, having considered at a preliminary court hearing a civil case on the claim of Cetelem Bank LLC against Alexander Alexandrovich Golosov for the collection of debt on a loan agreement and foreclosure of the collateral,
U S T A N O V I L:
The Reutov City Court of the Moscow Region with DD.MM.YYYY is processing a civil case on the claim of Cetelem Bank LLC against Alexander Aleksandrovich Golosov for the collection of debt under a loan agreement and foreclosure on the collateral. The claim is motivated by the fact that Cetelem Bank LLC and Alexander Alekseevich Golosov entered into an Agreement on the provision of a targeted consumer loan for the purchase of a motor vehicle No.<данные изъяты>from DD.MM.YYYY, according to which the Bank undertook to provide the defendant with a loan in the amount of 920,540.00 rubles for a period of 60 months, charging a fee for using the loan in the amount of 17.90 percent per annum of the loan amount, and the Defendant undertook to repay the loan on the terms and conditions established by the Loan Agreement.
DD.MM.YYYY<данные изъяты>» LLC changed its corporate name to “Cetelem Bank” LLC, which was recorded in the Unified State Register legal entities(Certificate dated DD.MM.YYYY, Ser. No.).
The targeted loan was provided to the Defendant for the purchase of a car<данные изъяты>identification number (VIN) No. and payment of the insurance premium under the Accident Insurance Agreement for individual defendants dated DD.MM.YYYY and payment of the insurance premium under the CASCO Insurance Agreement dated DD.MM.YYYY.
Ensuring proper fulfillment of the terms of the specified loan agreement between Cetelem Bank LLC and the Defendant is a motor vehicle -<данные изъяты>identification number (VIN) No.
The provisions and essential terms of the vehicle pledge agreement are contained in the loan agreement No. No. dated DD.MM.YYYY concluded between the Defendant and Cetelem Bank LLC, clause 3 Loan security.
The Bank fulfilled its obligations under the Loan Agreement in full and provided the Defendant with a loan in full, which is confirmed by the statement of account No.
According to the terms of the Loan Agreement, the client agreed to return to the Bank the amount of the principal debt, pay commissions and interest for using the Loan for the entire period of using funds in accordance with the terms of this Agreement no later than the date of the last loan payment specified in the Payment Schedule by making monthly payments.
The defendant failed to fulfill his obligations in a timely manner, which resulted in the formation of a debt and the basis for going to court. The demand for repayment of debt, sent by the plaintiff to the defendant in pre-trial order, was not fulfilled by the latter.
Based on the above, the representative of the plaintiff asks the court to recover from the defendant in favor of Cetelem Bank LLC the debt under the Agreement on the provision of a targeted consumer loan for the purchase of a motor vehicle in the total amount of 827,606.14 rubles. To foreclose on the pledged property - a motor vehicle, a car of the brand "<данные изъяты>» identification number (V1N) No. by sale at public auction. Establish the initial selling price of the pledged property - a motor vehicle, a car of the brand "<данные изъяты>» identification number (VIN) No., in the amount of RUB 4,439,000.00. To recover from the defendant in favor of Cetelem Bank LLC the costs of paying the state duty in the amount of RUB 11,476.06.
The plaintiff's representative, having been notified of the time and day judicial trial, did not appear in court.
The court, having checked the case materials, considers it possible to terminate the proceedings.
Based on Art. 222 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the court leaves the application without consideration if in the proceedings of this or another court or arbitration court there is a previously initiated case regarding a dispute between the same parties, on the same subject and on the same grounds.
When concluding a loan agreement, a mandatory requirement of the bank and an essential condition of the loan agreement was the borrower’s obligation to enter into an insurance agreement against car theft with the insurer specified by the bank - JSC Insurance Company Investments and Finance (clauses 1 and 21 of the agreement), the beneficiary was the bank . Also, a mandatory and essential condition of the loan agreement was the transfer of the car to the bank as collateral (clause 10). The defendant paid the insurance premium to JSC IC Investments and Finance. DD.MM.YYYY, an insured event occurred - the corner of the car, about which the borrower promptly notified the law enforcement agencies and the bank DD.MM.YYYY in writing.
From the presented documents it is clear that from DD.MM.YYYY the Moscow Arbitration Court is processing a case on the application of Cetelem Bank LLC to JSC Insurance Company Investments and Finance for inclusion in the register of claims of the debtor’s creditors under loan agreement No. No. from DD.MM.YYYY
Based on the aforesaid and guided by Article. 222 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, court
O P R E D E L I L:
Terminate the civil proceedings on the claim of Cetelem Bank LLC against Alexander Aleksandrovich Golosov for the collection of debt under the loan agreement and foreclosure on the collateral.
A private complaint against the ruling can be filed with the Moscow Regional Court through the Reutov City Court within 15 days.
<данные изъяты>
NIZHNY NOVGOROD REGIONAL COURT
APPEAL DECISION
The Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Nizhny Novgorod Regional Court, consisting of:
presiding judge Kondakova T.A.,
judges Kochetkova M.V. and Kulaeva E.V.,
when keeping the minutes of the court session by secretary Ignatyev S.V.,
considered in open court appeal Baykova O.A.
on the decision of the Sovetsky District Court of N. Novgorod dated December 11, 2014 in the case of the claim of O.A. Baykova. to Cetelem Bank LLC to invalidate the terms of the agreement, recognize the debt as repaid, the obligation terminated, collect compensation for moral damages, legal expenses, invalidate the accrual of a fine,
after hearing the report of the judge of the Nizhny Novgorod Regional Court Kochetkova M.V., the explanations of the representative Baykova O.A. by proxy Dovbush M.S., judicial panel
INSTALLED:
Baykova O.A. filed a lawsuit with these demands against Cetelem Bank LLC, indicating<…>year entered into an agreement with the defendant to provide a targeted consumer loan for the purchase of a vehicle No.<…>. Clause 7.12 of this agreement provides that the client agrees that all issues, disagreements or claims arising from the agreement with the bank and related to the collection of debt by the bank under the agreement are subject to consideration in court at the location of the bank. The plaintiff believes that the specified condition of the contract contradicts the law - clause 2 of article 17, clause 1 of article 16 of the Law of the Russian Federation of 02/07/1992 No. 2300-1 “On the Protection of Consumer Rights”, since the jurisdiction of disputes arising from contracts is one of the parties which the consumer is established by law and cannot be changed by agreement of the parties. Thus, the provisions of clause 7.12 of the loan agreement are void and on the basis of Art. 168 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation is subject to recognition as invalid. Besides,<…> <…>year, on the need to provide information and documents, as well as on changing the provisions of clause 7.12 of the agreement regarding the jurisdiction of the dispute under this agreement.<…>year this notification was received by the bank. However, the defendant did not provide a response to this notice.<…>year, the plaintiff re-sent the said notification. Having not received a response to the repeated notification, the plaintiff<…>transferred to the bank for early fulfillment of the obligation to repay the loan under the agreement dated<…>year cash in the amount of<…>. Considering these actions of the defendant to be illegal, the plaintiff, taking into account the amended requirements, asked the court to recognize the terms of clause 7.12 of the agreement on the provision of a targeted consumer loan for the purchase of a vehicle No.<…>from<…>year invalid (void); recognize as repaid the debt to Cetelem Bank LLC under the agreement on the provision of a targeted consumer loan for the purchase of a car from<…>year, and the obligations are terminated, recognize the accrual of a fine in the amount<…>rubles for failure to submit an invalid vehicle title for temporary storage; recover compensation for moral damages from Cetelem Bank LLC in the amount of<…>rubles, legal costs in the amount of<…>rubles
To the court of first instance, plaintiff O.A. Baykova and her representative by proxy Dovbush M.S. did not appear, were notified of the time and place of the hearing of the case.
Representative of the defendant Cetelem Bank LLC, by proxy, Kurmaev D.V. did not admit the claims.
By the decision of the Sovetsky District Court of N. Novgorod dated December 11, 2014, the claims of Baykova O.A. partially satisfied. The terms of clause 7.12 of the agreement on the provision of a targeted consumer loan for the purchase of a car were declared invalid due to the nullity<…>from<…>of the year.
Cetelem Bank LLC was awarded compensation for moral damage in the amount of<…>rubles, a fine of<…> <…>rubles Cetelem Bank LLC was charged a state duty to the municipal budget in the amount of<…>rubles In the rest of the claims, Baykova O.A. denied.
In the appeal of Baykova O.A. The question was raised about canceling the court decision in the part in which she was refused to satisfy her claims for recognition of the repaid debt to the bank as accepted in violation of the norms of substantive and procedural law.
In its objections to the appeal, Cetelem Bank LLC asks the court's decision to be left unchanged and the appeal to be dismissed.
The legality of the decision of the court of first instance was verified by the judicial panel for civil cases of the Nizhny Novgorod Regional Court in the manner established by Chapter 39 of the Civil procedural code Russian Federation.
By virtue of Part 1 of Article 327.1 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the appellate court considers the case within the limits of the arguments set out in the appeal.
Having checked the case materials, discussed the arguments of the appeal, objections to the complaint, heard the explanations of the persons who appeared in the case, the judicial panel does not find any grounds for canceling the court decision, since it was decided in accordance with the requirements of the law and the circumstances established in the case.
<…>years between Baykova O.A. and Cetelem Bank LLC entered into an agreement to provide a targeted consumer loan for the purchase of a vehicle No.<…>.
Clause 7.12 of this agreement provides that the client agrees that all issues, disagreements or claims arising from the agreement with the bank and related to the collection of debt by the bank under the agreement are subject to consideration in court at the location of the bank.
In accordance with Part 7 of Art. 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, claims for the protection of consumer rights can also be brought to the court at the place of residence or place of stay of the plaintiff, or at the place of conclusion or place of execution of the contract.
In accordance with paragraph 2 of Art. 17 of the Law of the Russian Federation of February 7, 1992 No. 2300-1 “On the Protection of Consumer Rights”, claims for the protection of consumer rights can be brought to court at the location of the organization, the place of residence or stay of the plaintiff, the place of conclusion or execution of the contract. In this case, the choice between several courts that have jurisdiction over the case belongs to the plaintiff.
Thus, in order to protect the rights of consumers, as the economically weaker party to the contract, the legislator has introduced additional mechanisms of legal protection, including in determining the jurisdiction of civil cases involving them.
The bank’s inclusion in the loan agreement of a provision on the jurisdiction of a dispute in a specific court (in particular at the location of the bank) infringes on the consumer’s rights established by law.
According to Part 1 of Art. 16 of the Law of the Russian Federation “On the Protection of Consumer Rights”, contract terms that infringe on consumer rights in comparison with the rules established by laws or other legal acts of the Russian Federation in the field of consumer rights protection are declared invalid.
Consequently, clause 7.12 of the loan agreement concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant does not comply with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation and the Law “On Protection of Consumer Rights”, and therefore, by virtue of Art. 168 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation is void.
In resolving the stated claims, the court of first instance, having assessed the circumstances established in the case in relation to the above provisions of the law, correctly concluded that the condition of the loan agreement, clause 7.12 of the disputed loan agreement, is invalid by force of law.
The appeal does not contain any arguments challenging these findings of the trial court.
From the case materials it follows that<…>year, by registered mail with a notification and a list of the attachments, the plaintiff sent a notification to the defendant about the early repayment of the loan under the agreement dated<…>year, on the need to provide information and documents, as well as on changing the provisions of clause 7.12 of the agreement regarding the jurisdiction of the dispute under this agreement (case sheets 21-23).
<…>year this notice was received by the defendant.
However, the defendant did not provide a response to this notice.
<…>year, the plaintiff re-sent the specified notification to the bank.
Having not received a response to the repeated notification, the plaintiff<…>transferred to the bank for early fulfillment of the obligation to repay the loan in the amount of<…>.
It has been established that by the date of the next monthly payment (<…>year) the defendant did not credit the entire amount transferred by the plaintiff in the amount of<…>on account of early fulfillment of the obligation to repay the loan under the agreement dated<…>of the year.
This transfer was not made by the bank due to insufficient Money, because the<…>year, the bank charged the plaintiff a fine for failure to provide a title for a vehicle in the amount of<…>rubles
<…>year, the defendant canceled the payment of a fine for failure to provide a title for a vehicle in the amount of<…>rubles (l.d. 185), and<…>year on account of the early execution of Baykova O.A. obligations under the contract credited the deposited funds to her account.
Thus, at the time of the court’s decision, the loan agreement was executed by the parties in full, and the parties’ obligations were terminated.
The court correctly stated that since at the time of the decision the said loan agreement was terminated by its execution, recognition of this loan agreement as executed (terminated) on a certain date will not in itself entail any consequences and will not directly lead to the restoration of the plaintiff’s rights.
Taking into account the grounds of the stated claims and the subject of the dispute under consideration, the arguments of the appeal about the illegal use of funds and the accrual of interest for the period from<…>year to<…>years, do not entail the cancellation of the decision of the court of first instance as unfounded.
Other arguments of the appeal, challenging the court’s conclusions on the merits of the dispute considered, also cannot affect the content of the court’s decision, the correctness of the court’s determination of the rights and obligations of the parties within the framework of the disputed legal relationship, and do not indicate the existence of the provisions provided for in Art. 330 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation grounds for the reversal of a court decision.
Arguments challenging the court's conclusions regarding the satisfaction of the claims of Baykova O.A. the appeal does not contain any demands for the recovery of compensation for moral damages and a fine in her favor, and no demands for the cancellation of the decision in this part.
The court did not allow any violations of substantive and procedural law that led or could lead to an incorrect resolution of this case (including those referred to in the appeal).
Meanwhile, the operative part of the decision does not indicate that the recovery from Cetelem Bank LLC of compensation for moral damages, a fine and expenses for paying for the services of a representative is made in favor of O.A. Baykova.
Within the meaning of the provisions of paragraph 6 of Article 330 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, this circumstance cannot be a basis for changing the decision. The court's decision in this part is subject to clarification.
Based on the above, guided by Articles 328, 329, 330 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the judicial panel for civil cases of the Nizhny Novgorod Regional Court
DEFINED:
the decision of the Sovetsky District Court of N. Novgorod dated December 11, 2014 is left unchanged, the appeal of O.A. Baykova. - without satisfaction.
To clarify the operative part of the decision of the Sovetsky District Court of N. Novgorod dated December 11, 2014 instead of the words “To recover from Cetelem Bank LLC compensation for moral damage in the amount<…>rubles, a fine of<…>rubles, expenses for payment of representative services in the amount of<…>rubles” indicate “Collect from Cetelem Bank LLC” in favor of O.A. Baykova. compensation for moral damage in the amount<…>rubles, a fine of<…>rubles, expenses for payment of representative services in the amount of<…>rubles."
Presiding judge.
Advice from lawyers:
1. I took out a car loan from Cetelem Bank and wrote an application for refusal of life insurance from Sberbank on March 24. How do I know if my insurance has been cancelled?
1.1. Easy: call SB and ask.
Good luck.
Did the answer help you? Not really
1.2. You will have to transfer the insurance funds within 10 days, or offset them against the loan, if this is provided for by the insurance rules.
Did the answer help you? Not really
2. Cetelem bank car loan vacation, loss of job.
2.1. Write an application to the bank for debt restructuring/deferment of payment, attaching documents confirming your loss of work.
Did the answer help you? Not really
3. What is the clause in the contract 1.3 amount to pay for other consumer needs? Bank Cetelem.
3.1. Not quite clear. We need to look at the contract to answer your question.
Sincerely.
Did the answer help you? Not really
4. We are going to apply for a car loan at a network bank, are we required to leave the title with the bank?
4.1. You need to find out this from the bank. The conditions for issuing a loan are different for everyone.
Did the answer help you? Not really
5. It is possible to return the insurance if you repay your car loan early at Cetelem Bank.
5.1. Is it possible to demand the return of part of the insurance, and in some cases the full amount, is the insurance now in hand?
Did the answer help you? Not really
6. How to maintain car credit. The bank sued. Sethelem.
6.1. Just negotiate with the bank, look for money and repay the loan.
Otherwise, the car will be seized by the bailiffs.
Did the answer help you? Not really
6.2. Or challenge the pledge agreement if it is drawn up with violations. There are other options, but again, it all depends on the terms of the contract. In some cases, the car is sold, and the buyer is subsequently found to be in good faith. To study the situation in more detail, you can contact us for a personal consultation using the contacts below.
With respect, lawyer in Volgograd - Stepanov Vadim Igorevich.
Did the answer help you? Not really
7. Cetelem Bank imposed a fine for late prolongation of CASCO insurance. How to dispute?
7.1. What is written in your contract terms? I take it this is a car loan? Please look. After all, a contract is when 2 parties agree on certain conditions and by signing, they confirm that they have come to an agreement on all points and confirm their intentions to fulfill the conditions set out in the contract.
If on your part there was indeed a violation of the essential terms of the contract, then the imposition of a fine (if one is also provided for in the contract) is quite appropriate.
Did the answer help you? Not really
7.2. If this fine is provided for in your loan agreement, then it is useless to dispute this fact. You yourself agreed to this condition when signing the contract. All the best!
Did the answer help you? Not really
8. Auto loan from network bank. Overdue 4 months. threaten to sue.
8.1. The bank has the right to collect in court the existing debt + fines, penalties, penalties, etc. It is better for you to reach an agreement with the bank and find a way out of the situation, otherwise legal costs will be added to the debt. If the car is pledged to the bank, then it is possible that the bank will demand foreclosure on the pledged property.
Did the answer help you? Not really
9. Can I defer the monthly payment on a car loan at a network bank?
9.1. Nikolai!
If you do this, then, obviously, the sanctions provided for in the loan agreement (penalties, fines) will be applied.
Did the answer help you? Not really
10. Cetelem Bank refuses to pay the balance of the insurance in case of early repayment of the loan.
10.1. If the loan is repaid ahead of schedule, you can claim a refund of part of the funds, if such a condition is provided for in the agreement.
Did the answer help you? Not really
11. How can I find out if I have been approved for a car loan at a network bank?
11.1. How can I find out if I was approved for a car loan at a network bank?
How can I find out if I was approved for a car loan at a network bank?
They must call, if they don’t call, it means they refused. Go pick up your documents if you handed them in.
Did the answer help you? Not really
12. How to send a policy with documents confirming payment for comprehensive insurance to the bank using a network?
12.1. You can send it by mail with a list of attachments and a receipt.
But it is better to hand it over directly to the bank.
Did the answer help you? Not really
12.2. All contact information is posted on the bank’s website, as well as a multi-line telephone number for contacting the operator, please check.
Did the answer help you? Not really
13. I am on maternity leave to care for a child up to three years old. In October last year, I took out a loan due to very urgent circumstances on unfavorable terms. Now, during the coronavirus epidemic, my husband has no income, and we also have 2 small children. How can I correctly arrange credit holidays for the maximum period at Cetelem Bank so that there is no refusal?
13.1. In order to receive a credit holiday, you must document that your spouse’s income has decreased by 30% or more; this can be confirmed by a certificate of closure of the individual entrepreneur or a certificate from the place of work. If the spouse did not work officially, then it will not be possible to apply for a credit holiday; it will only be possible to refinance the loan, at the discretion of the bank.
Did the answer help you? Not really
Consultation on your issue
Calls from landlines and mobiles are free throughout Russia
14. Soon there will be a month overdue on the car loan at the network bank, I want to make 2 payments at once in 10 days. How long does it take for the bank to sue, and do they always take the car?
14.1. Usually it takes from a couple of months to a year from delay to trial.
The car will be foreclosed on even later, until the court decision comes into force, until the case is handed over to the bailiffs. So you still have time to fix everything.
Did the answer help you? Not really
14.2. The bank will not immediately sue you; first you will have a pre-trial settlement, in the form of telephone conversations and writing letters of claim.
Sincerely! Please leave your review for my consultation!
Did the answer help you? Not really
14.3. This is at the discretion of the bank. Usually, before going to court, a claim is sent to the debtor.
Did the answer help you? Not really
14.4. Not always, the bank sues starting from 3 months.
Did the answer help you? Not really
15. I took out a car loan from Cetelem Bank and wanted to know if I can refuse life insurance, since 14 days have not yet passed since the purchase of the car. What should I do for this?
15.1. Christina, you need to write an application for termination of the insurance contract to the Insurance Company with which you have an agreement. But in such cases, banks often increase interest rate on loan.
Did the answer help you? Not really
15.2. Taking into account the norms of the current legislation, namely clause 1 of the Bank of Russia Directive of November 20, 2015 N 3854-U “On minimum (standard) requirements for the conditions and procedure for the implementation of certain types of voluntary insurance” - when carrying out voluntary insurance, the policyholder (person who takes out a loan and accordingly enters into an insurance contract) has the right to refuse the insurance contract and demand a full return of funds for insurance within 14 days from the moment the insurance contract is concluded or from the moment the bank or insurance organization enters the borrower into the register of insured persons. The period of 14 days is called the cooling period. IN in this case it is necessary to submit a request in writing to the credit and insurance organizations, indicating that the insurance contract has been terminated and, accordingly, the insurance premium must be returned. In a situation where the borrower's claims are not satisfied before the trial, it is necessary to claim it in court by filing a statement of claim with the court at the place of official registration of the borrower and the territorial jurisdiction of the judicial authority.
Did the answer help you? Not really
16. If I pay, according to the writ of execution to the bailiffs, and the bank sends an SMS in the form "Cetelem Bank LLC: During the verification of information under your agreement, inconsistencies were identified. Providing fictitious personal data is a violation of the law. Today, pay the overdue debt and call back Bank 88005005509" what to do?
16.1. If you did not provide false information, then there is no need to call anywhere.
Did the answer help you? Not really
17. Cetelem Bank filed a lawsuit for the full cost of the loan, half was paid, the court is at the place of registration, I am in another city, is it possible to file an objection by e-mail so that the court decision does not come into force, and how can this be done? How can I reduce the amount? Thank you.
17.1. You can file an objection to the claim.
If you send an objection by email, it must be duplicated by sending the document by Russian Post by registered mail. It is necessary.
The amount can be reduced, but to do this you need to read the full text of the statement of claim and the calculations attached to it.
I can draw up for you an objection to the claim with all the required calculations, completely ready to be sent to court. If you need my help, write to the email address attached to my answer.
Did the answer help you? Not really
18. Took credit card for 10 thousand with the bank's network. I threw it away after 6 years. they called and said that the amount is 180 thousand interest... we have to pay. How have they not filed a lawsuit in 6 years if they have grounds? The card was issued by mail.
18.1. The creditor has the right to decide when to go to court. The expiration of the limitation period does not deprive the creditor of the right to go to court.
Did the answer help you? Not really
18.2. The statute of limitations does not automatically apply. It can only be applied by a court, and only at the request of the parties. The bank transferred money to your card, and what you did with it is your business. After throwing away the card. The meter continued to work.
Did the answer help you? Not really
19. This month I have my last installment on a car loan at Cetelem Bank. What are my next steps, given that the car dealership where the loan agreement was drawn up and the bank - in different cities?
19.1. Make your final payment. The next day after write-off, pick up the original PTS and receive a certificate of loan closure. Actually, that's all.
Did the answer help you? Not really
20. Car loan from network bank. The contract states that CASCO must be taken out for at least one year. Is it possible not to apply for the second year?
20.1. If the contract does not provide for mandatory CASCO insurance, then it is not necessary. However, if you refuse Casco insurance, you personally assume full responsibility to the bank, in the event that an accident occurs and the car loses its marketable value, and compulsory compulsory motor third party liability insurance does not cover the damage caused, or you are the culprit of the accident, all costs of restoring the car will be borne by owner. At the same time, the loan from the bank will not go anywhere.
Did the answer help you? Not really
21. I paid the court from my pension to Setelem Bank for 2 years, 5 thousand each. Now I’ve finished, now they’re charging me a penalty of 185 thousand. The loan itself was 200, can I somehow get out of everything and what to do? Help?
21.1. There is no need to pay the penalty voluntarily. Let the bank go to court, and in court you can declare a reduction in the amount of the penalty in accordance with Art. 333 Civil Code of the Russian Federation.
Did the answer help you? Not really
21.2. in this case you do not have to pay anything. If the bank goes to court, you should submit a response to reduce the amount of the penalty, etc.
Did the answer help you? Not really
22. I took out a car loan from Cetelem Bank, except for the amount of 707,450 rubles. , which was needed to purchase a car, an amount was also added to pay for other consumer needs - 39844. The loan was repaid in full within 6 months. Can I return part of the amount for other consumer needs, since I no longer need them?
22.1. You can warn the lender about early repayment of the loan at least a month in advance.
Did the answer help you? Not really
22.2. We need to look at what these needs are? As a rule, with a car loan they impose insurance and services, where exactly did this money go?
Did the answer help you? Not really
23. I pay a car loan to Cetelem Bank, I was late in purchasing CASCO, (but bought it) I was fined 10,000 rubles. (this is stipulated in the contract and they were also offended by the fact that I did not buy insurance from their representative) the bottom line is, can the Bank remove the amount of the fine from the amount I pay on the principal debt, which I pay monthly?
23.1. Read the contract, most likely there is such a order of repayment: first legal costs, then penalties, then interest, then the principal debt. Look in the contract for the order of repayment.
Did the answer help you? Not really
24. I received an SMS from Creditexpr Debt Cetelem Bank LLC, 88OO5OO55O9 at KIF LLC, call back 88002220483, although I am not familiar with this bank at all.
24.1. We do not deal with these issues.
Did the answer help you? Not really
24.2. These are collectors. Ignore it, otherwise they may write off a large sum from your phone and the bank account linked to it.
Did the answer help you? Not really
25. I took out a loan from Setem 2014. I couldn’t pay. November 28, 2018
.learned that the debt was sold to collectors since 2015. The bank itself no longer exists. Is it possible to save the entire debt?
25.1. If 3 years have not passed since the last loan payment (Article 196 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), then you will not be able to write off the debts.
Did the answer help you? Not really
№ – 538/2014
<адрес>DD.MM.YYYY
Dzerzhinsky District Court<адрес>consisting of:
presiding judge Popov K.B.,
under the secretary, full name 5,
having considered in open court a civil case on the claim of the Limited Liability Company "Cetelem Bank" against FULL NAME2 for the collection of debt under a loan agreement, foreclosure on the pledged property,
U S T A N O V I L:
Cetelem Bank LLC filed a lawsuit against FULL NAME2 for the collection of debt under the loan agreement, foreclosure on the pledged property, citing in support of the fact that CB BNP Paribas Vostok LLC (hereinafter referred to as the “Bank” / “Creditor” ) and Full Name2 (hereinafter referred to as the “Borrower”/“Defendant”) entered into an Agreement on the provision of a targeted consumer loan for the purchase of a vehicle No. C 04100132928 dated DD.MM.YYYY (hereinafter referred to as the “Loan Agreement”), in accordance with which the Bank undertook provide the Borrower with a loan in the amount of 202,000.00 rubles for a period of 24 months with a fee for using the loan in the amount of 14.5 percent per annum of the loan amount, and the Borrower agreed to repay the loan on the terms and in the manner established by the Loan Agreement. DD.MM.YYYY CB "BNP Paribas Vostok" LLC changed its corporate name to "Setelem Bank" LLC, which was recorded in the Unified State Register of Legal Entities (Certificate from DD.MM.YYYY series 77 No. 014387804). The targeted loan was provided to the Borrower for the purchase of a DaewooNexia car identification number (VIN) XWB3L32EDDA007062 and payment of the insurance premium under the Accident Insurance Agreement for individuals-borrowers dated DD.MM.YYYY, concluded between the Borrower and CARDIF Insurance Company LLC, payment insurance premium under the CASCO insurance contract from DD.MM.YYYY<адрес>parts of the above Loan Agreement No. C 04100132928 dated DD.MM.YYYY are the Client’s Questionnaire-Application for a loan, General conditions for the issuance and servicing of credit products of Cetelem Bank LLC (hereinafter referred to as the “General Conditions”), the Loan Payment Schedule and the Bank’s Tariffs (hereinafter - Tariffs). DD.MM.YYYY, in order to ensure the proper fulfillment of the terms of the specified Loan Agreement between Cetelem Bank LLC and the Defendant, a Pledge Agreement for a vehicle No. (hereinafter referred to as the “Pledge Agreement”) was concluded, in accordance with which a vehicle was pledged - DaewooNexia , identification number (VIN) XWB3L32EDDA007062, vehicle passport<адрес>. The Bank fulfilled its obligations under the Loan Agreement in full and provided the Borrower with a loan in full, which is confirmed by account statement No. 40817810704100132928. A request for full early repayment of the debt was sent to the Defendant, but has not yet been fulfilled. The Defendant's debt under the Agreement on the provision of a targeted consumer loan for the purchase of a vehicle No. C 04100132928 from DD.MM.YYYY to Cetelem Bank LLC is: 167,711.85 rubles, of which: the amount of the principal debt under the Loan Agreement is 157,440.64 rubles, the amount of interest for use in cash - 5345.17 rubles, the amount of interest accrued on overdue debt is 525.94 rubles. Requests the court to recover from the Defendant - FULL NAME2 in favor of Cetelem Bank LLC the debt under the Agreement on the provision of a targeted consumer loan for the purchase of a vehicle in the total amount of 167,711.85 rubles. To foreclose on the pledged property - vehicle DaewooNexia identification number (VEST) XWB3L32EDDA007062, vehicle passport<адрес>, by selling at public auction, set the initial selling price of the pledged property - a DaewooNexia vehicle identification number (VPN) XWB3r32EDDA007062, vehicle passport<адрес>, in the amount of 133,600.00 rubles. To recover from Full Name 4 the benefit of Cetelem Bank LLC the costs of paying the state duty in the amount of 4,554.24 rubles.
A representative of Cetelem Bank LLC did not appear at the court hearing and submitted an application to consider the case in his absence.
The defendant, FULL NAME2, did not appear at the court hearing, was notified of the date and time of the court hearing in a timely and proper manner, did not inform the court of the reason for his failure to appear, and did not provide any objections to the claim. Earlier at the court hearing, he provided the original receipt confirming partial repayment of the debt in the amount of 50,000 rubles.
The court, having examined the written materials of the case, finds the claims subject to satisfaction on the following grounds.
By virtue of clause 1, part 1, article 8 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation civil rights and obligations arise from contracts and other transactions provided for by law, as well as from contracts and other transactions, although not provided for by law, but not contrary to it.
According to Article 307 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, by virtue of an obligation, one person (debtor) is obliged to perform a certain action in favor of another person (creditor), and the creditor has the right to demand that the debtor fulfill his obligation.
In accordance with Articles 309, 310 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, obligations must be fulfilled properly in accordance with the terms of the obligation and the requirements of the law, other legal acts, and in the absence of such conditions and requirements - in accordance with business customs and other usually imposed requirements. Unilateral refusal to fulfill an obligation and unilateral change of its terms are not allowed.
In accordance with Article 819 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, under a loan agreement, a bank or other credit organization (lender) undertakes to provide funds (loan) to the borrower in the amount and on the terms stipulated by the agreement, and the borrower undertakes to return the amount received and pay interest on it.
Based on Article 432 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, an agreement is considered concluded if an agreement is reached between the parties, in the form required in appropriate cases, on all essential conditions agreement. Essential are the conditions on the subject of the contract, the conditions that are named in the law or other legal acts as essential or necessary for contracts of this type, as well as all those conditions regarding which, at the request of one of the parties, an agreement must be reached.
The court established.
CB "BNP Paribas Vostok" LLC (hereinafter referred to as the "Bank"/"Creditor") and Full Name2 (hereinafter referred to as the "Borrower"/"Defendant") entered into an Agreement on the provision of a targeted consumer loan for the purchase of a vehicle No. C 04100132928 from DD. MM.YYYY (hereinafter referred to as the “Loan Agreement”), according to which the Bank undertook to provide the Borrower with a loan in the amount of 202,000.00 rubles for a period of 24 months, charging a fee for using the loan in the amount of 14.5 percent per annum of the loan amount, and the Borrower undertook to repay the loan for conditions and in the manner established by the Loan Agreement.
DD.MM.YYYY CB "BNP Paribas Vostok" LLC changed its corporate name to "Setelem Bank" LLC, which was recorded in the Unified State Register of Legal Entities (Certificate from DD.MM.YYYY series 77 No. 014387804).
The targeted loan was provided to the Borrower for the purchase of a DaewooNexia car identification number (VIN) XWB3L32EDDA007062 and payment of the insurance premium under the Accident Insurance Agreement for individuals-borrowers dated DD.MM.YYYY, concluded between the Borrower and CARDIF Insurance Company LLC, payment insurance premium under the CASCO insurance contract from DD.MM.YYYY
Integral parts of the above Loan Agreement No. C 04100132928 dated DD.MM.YYYY are the Client's Questionnaire-Application for a loan, General conditions for issuing and servicing credit products of Cetelem Bank LLC (hereinafter referred to as the “General Conditions”), Loan payment schedule and Tariffs Bank (hereinafter - Tariffs).
DD.MM.YYYY, in order to ensure the proper fulfillment of the terms of the specified Loan Agreement between Cetelem Bank LLC and the Defendant, a Pledge Agreement for a vehicle No. (hereinafter referred to as the “Pledge Agreement”) was concluded, in accordance with which a vehicle was pledged - DaewooNexia , identification number (VIN) XWB3L32EDDA007062, vehicle passport<адрес>.
The Bank fulfilled its obligations under the Loan Agreement in full and provided the Borrower with a loan in full, which is confirmed by account statement No. 40817810704100132928.
A request for full early repayment of the debt was sent to the Defendant, but has not yet been fulfilled.
The Defendant's debt under the Agreement on the provision of a targeted consumer loan for the purchase of a vehicle No. C 04100132928 from DD.MM.YYYY to Cetelem Bank LLC is: 167,711.85 rubles, of which: the amount of the principal debt under the Loan Agreement is 157,440.64 rubles, the amount of interest for use in cash - 5345.17 rubles, the amount of interest accrued on overdue debt is 525.94 rubles.
In accordance with Art. 819 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the rules provided for by the provisions on the Loan apply to relations under the loan agreement. In accordance with Art. 810 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation The borrower is obliged to return to the lender the received loan amount on time and in the manner prescribed by the loan agreement.
According to Part 2 of Art. 811 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, if the loan agreement provides for the return of the loan in installments (in installments), then if the borrower violates the deadline established for the return of the next part of the loan, the lender has the right to demand early repayment of the entire remaining loan amount along with the interest due.
According to Art. 309 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, obligations must be fulfilled properly in accordance with the terms of the obligation.
Thus, at the court hearing it was established that the Defendant’s debt under the Agreement on the provision of a targeted consumer loan for the purchase of a vehicle No. C 04100132928 from DD.MM.YYYY to Cetelem Bank LLC amounts to 167,711 rubles 85 kopecks.
Taking into account the above requirements of the law, the circumstances of the case established at the court hearing, the court considers the claims for collection of debt under the loan agreement to be justified and subject to satisfaction, in part.
As established at the court hearing, during the consideration of the case, the plaintiff voluntarily fulfilled his obligations, paid the debt under the loan agreement in the amount of 50,000 rubles, which is confirmed by the cash receipt order No. dated DD.MM.YYYY
Consequently, the debt to the bank after the plaintiff’s partial fulfillment of his obligations amounts to 117,711 rubles 85 kopecks.
If the Borrower violates its obligations under the agreement, the Bank has the right to foreclose on the pledged property and sell it.
Taking into account the above circumstances, the court considers it necessary to satisfy the plaintiff’s demands to foreclose on the pledged property - a DaewooNexia model car identification number (VIN) XWB3L32EDDA007062, the owner of which is currently FULL NAME2
As follows from the conclusion on the revaluation of the market value of the vehicle, the market value of the pledged vehicle was 167,000 rubles.
Thus, taking into account the terms of the pledge agreement, which provide for the initial sale price as 80% of the market value, the initial sale price of the vehicle is 133,600 rubles.
Due to the lack of objections from the defendant, the court considers it necessary to determine the initial selling price of the car in the amount of 133,600 rubles.
In accordance with Art. 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the court orders the party in whose favor the court decision to reimburse the other party for all legal expenses incurred in the case in proportion to the claims satisfied.
The court found that when filing a claim, the plaintiff paid a state fee in the amount of 4,554 rubles 24 kopecks, which is confirmed by a payment order.
Since the plaintiff’s claims against the defendant are partially satisfied, then 3,554 rubles 23 kopecks must be recovered from the defendant, FULL NAME2, in favor of Cetelem Bank LLC to reimburse the costs of paying the state duty.
Guided by articles 194-199 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the court
the claims of the Limited Liability Company "Cetelem Bank" against FULL NAME2 for the collection of debt under the loan agreement, foreclosure on the pledged property - partially satisfied.
Collect from Full Name2 the debt under the Agreement on the provision of a targeted consumer loan for the purchase of a vehicle No. C 04100132928 from DD.MM.YYYY in the amount of 117,711 rubles 85 kopecks.
To foreclose on the mortgaged property - a car model DaewooNexia, identification number (VIN) XWB3L32EDDA007062, owned by FULL NAME2, establishing the sale price of the car in the amount of 133,600 rubles.
To recover from FULL NAME2 in favor of the Limited Liability Company “Cetelem Bank”, to reimburse the costs of paying the state duty in the amount of 3554 rubles 23 kopecks.
The rest of the claims of the Limited Liability Company "Cetelem Bank" against FULL NAME2 for the collection of debt under the loan agreement and legal costs are rejected.
The decision can be appealed through the Dzerzhinsky District Court<адрес>in Volgogradskoe regional court within a month from the date of the final court decision.
The final form of the decision was made by DD.MM.YYYY.
A44-1939/2014
FOURTEENTH ARBITRATION CASE
COURT OF APPEAL
st. Batyushkova, 12, Vologda, 160001
http://site
P O S T A N O V L E N I E
The operative part of the resolution was announced on December 25, 2014 .
The resolution was issued in full on January 12, 2015.
Fourteenth Arbitration Court of Appeal consisting of presiding Murakhina N.V., judges Osokina N.N. and Pestereva O.Yu.
when keeping the minutes by the secretary of the court session Mazaletskaya O.O.,
having considered in open court the appeal of the limited liability company "Cetelem Bank" against the decision of the Arbitration Court Novgorod region dated October 9, 2014 in case No. A44-1939/2014 (judge I.G. Larina),
u st a n o v i l:
Limited liability company "Cetelem Bank" (TIN 6452010742, OGRN 1027739664260; location: 125040, Moscow, Pravdy street, building 26; hereinafter referred to as the bank, LLC "Cetelem Bank") appealed to the Arbitration Court of the Novgorod Region with an application to the Office of the Federal service for supervision in the field of protection of consumer rights and human well-being in the Novgorod region (TIN 5321101433, OGRN 1055300903833; location: 173015, Velikiy Novgorod, Germana street, building 14; hereinafter referred to as the department) on declaring illegal and canceling the order to eliminate the identified violations from 03/19/2014 No. 49/ZPP.
By the decision of the Arbitration Court of the Novgorod Region dated October 9, 2014 in case No. A44-1939/2014, the stated claims were denied.
The bank did not agree with the judicial act and filed an appeal in which it asked the court's decision to be overturned. In support of the complaint, he points out that the order dated March 19, 2014 No. 49/ZPP is illegal, since standard forms agreements on the provision of a targeted consumer loan for the purchase of a vehicle, agreements on the provision of a loan for urgent needs, as well as the General conditions for the issuance and servicing of credit products of Cetelem Bank LLC, which were in force at the time of its issuance, have become invalid and are not applied by the bank when concluding agreements in due to the entry into force on July 1, 2014 of the Federal Law of December 21, 2013 No. 353-FZ “On consumer credit(loan)” (hereinafter referred to as Law No. 353-FZ, Law on Consumer Credit).
The department did not provide a response to the appeal.
The persons participating in the case were duly notified of the time and place of consideration of the appeal; representatives were not sent to the court; therefore, the case was considered in their absence in accordance with Articles 123, 156, 266 of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter - APC RF).
Having examined the evidence in the case, checked the legality and validity of the court's decision, and examined the arguments of the complaint, the appellate court finds no grounds for satisfying it.
As follows from the case materials, the department, on the basis of order No. 49 dated January 29, 2014, carried out a scheduled inspection of the activities of the Novgorod Representative Office of Cetelem Bank LLC in order to ensure the protection of consumer rights and compliance with mandatory requirements for goods (work, services), based on the results of which an act was drawn up inspection dated March 19, 2014 No. 49, which reflected that Cetelem Bank LLC violated the requirements of the Law of the Russian Federation dated February 7, 1992 No. 2300-1 “On the Protection of Consumer Rights” (hereinafter referred to as Law No. 2300-1, Law on the Protection of Rights consumers), expressed in the inclusion in standard forms of agreements on the provision of targeted consumer loans for the purchase of a vehicle, on the provision of a loan for urgent needs, in the General Conditions for the Issue and Servicing of Credit Products of Cetelem Bank LLC, as well as in agreements with specific consumers of the bank’s services , conditions that infringe on the rights of consumers, expressed in providing the bank with the opportunity to write off funds without authorization from the client’s accounts - individual.
In connection with the identified violations, on March 19, 2014, the bank was issued an order No. 49/ZPP to eliminate the identified violations by April 19, 2014, by excluding them from the specified standard forms of agreements and General conditions issuing and servicing credit products of Cetelem Bank LLC, those conditions that infringe on the rights of consumers in comparison with the rules established by laws or other legal acts of the Russian Federation.
In addition, on March 19, 2014, a protocol on an administrative offense was drawn up against the bank, and on April 18, 2014, Resolution No. 449 was issued, by which the bank was held liable under Part 2 of Article 14.8 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, in the form of a fine of 10,000 rubles.
Having disagreed with the issued order, the bank challenged it in court.
According to Part 4 of Article 200 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, when considering cases of challenging non-normative legal acts, decisions and actions (inaction) of state bodies, local government bodies, other bodies, officials, the arbitration court in a court hearing checks the contested act or its individual provisions, contested decisions and actions (inaction) and establishes their compliance with the law or other normative legal act, establishes the authority of the body or person who adopted the contested act, decision or committed the contested actions (inaction), and also establishes whether the contested act, decision and actions violate (inaction) rights and legitimate interests of the applicant in the field of business and other economic activity.
In accordance with Article 40 of the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights, state control and supervision over compliance with laws and other regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation governing relations in the field of consumer rights protection is carried out by the authorized federal executive body for control (supervision) in the field of consumer rights protection ( its territorial bodies), as well as other federal executive authorities (their territorial bodies) exercising control and supervision functions in the field of protection of consumer rights and safety of goods (works, services), in the manner determined by the Government of the Russian Federation.
The Regulations on the Federal Service for Supervision of Consumer Rights Protection and Human Welfare, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of June 30, 2004 No. 322, functions related to the implementation of supervision and control over compliance with the mandatory requirements of the legislation of the Russian Federation, including in the field of protection of rights consumers (clause 5 of the Regulations), are assigned to Federal service on supervision in the field of consumer rights protection and human well-being.
Clause 1 of Part 1 of Article 17 of the Federal Law of December 26, 2008 No. 294-FZ “On the protection of the rights of legal entities and individual entrepreneurs in the implementation of state control(supervision) and municipal control" (hereinafter referred to as Law No. 294-FZ) provides for the obligation of officials of the state control (supervision) body, municipal control body who conducted the inspection, within the powers provided for by the legislation of the Russian Federation, to issue an order to carry out measures to prevent causing harm to life, health of people, harm to animals, plants, the environment, state security, property of individuals and legal entities, state or municipal property, prevention of emergency situations natural and man-made, as well as other activities provided for by federal laws.
Consequently, the contested order was issued by the department within its powers.
According to Article 9 of the Federal Law of January 26, 1996 No. 15-FZ “On the entry into force of Part Two of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation”, paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights, relations with the participation of consumers are regulated by the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) , the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights, other federal laws and other regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation adopted in accordance with them.
By virtue of paragraph 1 of Article 16 of the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights, the terms of the contract that infringe on the rights of the consumer in comparison with the rules established by laws or other legal acts of the Russian Federation in the field of consumer protection are declared invalid.
In paragraph 4 of Article 421 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the terms of the contract are determined at the discretion of the parties, except in cases where the content of the relevant condition is prescribed by law or other legal acts (Article 422).
According to paragraph 1 of Article 422 of this Code, the contract must comply with the rules obligatory for the parties established by law and other legal acts (imperative norms) in force at the time of its conclusion.
In accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 845 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, under a bank account agreement, the bank undertakes to accept and credit funds received to the account opened for the client (account owner), carry out the client’s orders to transfer and withdraw the corresponding amounts from the account and carry out other operations on the account.
The bank can use the funds available in the account, guaranteeing the client’s right to freely dispose of these funds (clause 2 of Article 845 of this Code).
By virtue of paragraph 3 of Article 845 of the said Code, the bank does not have the right to determine and control the direction of use of the client’s funds and establish other restrictions on his right to dispose of funds at his own discretion, not provided for by law or the bank account agreement.
In accordance with Article 854 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, funds are written off from the account by the bank on the basis of the client’s order.
According to Article 858 of the said Code, restriction of the client’s rights to dispose of the funds in the account is not allowed, with the exception of seizing the funds in the account or suspending operations on the account in cases provided for by law.
According to clause 3.1 of the Regulations of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation dated August 31, 1998 No. 54-P “On the procedure for the provision (placement) of funds by credit institutions and their return (repayment)” (hereinafter referred to as Regulation No. 54-P), the repayment (return) of funds placed by the bank funds and payment of interest on them is carried out by transferring funds from the accounts of client-borrowers - individuals on the basis of their written orders, transferring funds of client-borrowers - individuals through communications authorities or other credit organizations, the latter's contribution of cash to the cash desk of the creditor bank on the basis of a cash receipt order, as well as deduction from the amounts due for wages to borrower clients who are employees of the creditor bank (according to their applications or on the basis of an agreement).
Thus, the return of funds placed by the bank and the payment of interest on them are made according to the active will of the borrower, whether payment order in the case of non-cash payments, or a written order, transfer, deposit of cash to the bank's cash desk - in other cases. Thus, Regulation No. 54-P also does not provide for the possibility of direct debiting of funds from the client’s account by the bank.
The appeal board rejects the bank’s argument that current legislation, in particular Federal Law dated June 27, 2011 No. 161-FZ “On the National Payment System” (hereinafter referred to as Law No. 161-FZ) and the Bank of Russia Regulations “On the rules for transferring funds » dated 06/19/2012 No. 383-P, it is possible to obtain a pre-given acceptance from the payer, since in this case it is provided for in the standard forms of agreements on the provision of a targeted consumer loan for the purchase of a vehicle, on the provision of a loan for urgent needs, by the General Conditions for the Issue and Servicing of Credit Products Cetelem Bank LLC, the client’s consent to debit funds from the account without additional acceptance does not fall under the criteria of “pre-given acceptance”.
In addition, paragraph 2 of Article 854 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation stipulates that, without the client’s order, debiting funds on the account is permitted by a court decision, as well as in cases established by law or provided for by an agreement between the bank and the client.
According to clause 2.9.1 of the Bank of Russia Regulation “On the rules for transferring funds” dated June 19, 2012 No. 383-P, this acceptance by the payer can be given in advance in an agreement between the payer’s bank and the payer and (or) in the form of a separate message or document, in including a statement of advance given acceptance drawn up by the payer in in electronic format or on paper, indicating the amount of acceptance or the procedure for determining it, information about the recipient of funds who has the right to submit orders to the payer’s bank account, about the payer’s obligation and the main agreement, including in cases provided for federal law, indicating the possibility (impossibility) of partial execution of the order, as well as other information. This acceptance must be given in advance before presenting the order of the recipient of the funds. This acceptance may be given in advance in relation to one or more bank accounts of the payer, one or more recipients of funds, one or more orders of the recipient of funds.
From the above it follows that the specified terms of contracts do not fall under the criteria of “pre-given acceptance”, since they do not contain the amount of acceptance or the procedure for determining it, information about the recipient of funds who has the right to submit orders to the payer’s bank account, about the payer’s obligation and the main agreement, in including in cases provided for by federal law, indicating the possibility (impossibility) of partial execution of the order, as well as information about the payer’s bank accounts in respect of which acceptance has been given in advance.
In accordance with Article 310 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, unilateral refusal to fulfill an obligation and unilateral change of its conditions are not allowed, except in cases provided for by law.
According to civil law (Chapter 42 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), the borrower has an obligation to repay the loan early at the request of the lender only in certain cases, which include the following:
if the borrower violates the deadline established for the return of the next loan amount, if the loan agreement provides for the return of the loan in parts (clause 2 of Article 811 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation);
if the borrower fails to fulfill the obligations stipulated by the loan agreement to ensure the repayment of the loan amount, if the collateral is lost or its conditions deteriorate due to circumstances for which the lender is not responsible (Article 813 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation);
in case of failure by the borrower to comply with the terms of the loan agreement on the intended use of the loan amount, in case of violation of the obligation to ensure that the lender can exercise control over the intended use of the loan amount (Article 814 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).
In all other cases not specified by law, the lender has no right to demand early repayment of the loan. The specified condition of the contract infringes on the rights of consumers in connection with the bank’s expansion of the cases of early loan repayment listed in the law.
Thus, the inclusion in standard forms of agreements on the provision of a targeted consumer loan for the purchase of a vehicle, on the provision of a loan for urgent needs, in the General Conditions for the Issue and Servicing of Credit Products of Cetelem Bank LLC, of conditions on the possibility of direct debiting by the bank of funds from the client’s accounts - an individual is rightfully recognized by the defendant as violating consumer rights.
The Bank has not provided evidence of the inconsistency of the disputed order with the requirements of the law and the violation of its rights and interests in the field of entrepreneurial activity.
Consequently, there are no grounds for invalidating the contested order.
In addition, the legality of the order is also confirmed by the decision of the Moscow Arbitration Court dated June 16, 2014 in case A40-56702/2014, which entered into legal force, which confirmed the legality of bringing the bank to administrative responsibility for committing the above violations, as well as conducting an inspection against it .
In the appeal, the applicant points out that the order dated March 19, 2014 No. 49/ZPP is illegal, since the standard forms of the above disputed agreements, as well as the General Conditions for the Issue and Service of Credit Products of Cetelem Bank LLC, which were in force at the time of its issuance, have lost force and are not applied by the bank when concluding agreements due to the entry into force of the Law on Consumer Credit on July 1, 2014.
This argument must be rejected, since evidence of non-use of the current disputed standard agreements and the General Conditions for the Issue and Servicing of Credit Products of Cetelem Bank LLC was not presented in the case materials. In addition, this circumstance could not influence the legality of the contested order, since at the time of its issuance the violations specified in it had taken place, which is confirmed by the case materials, in this regard, the order dated March 19, 2014 No. 49/ZPP is legal.
Under the above circumstances, the appellate court found that the decision of the arbitration court of first instance was made upon full clarification of the circumstances of the case, violations of the rules of substantive and procedural law were not established, and there were no grounds for satisfying the appeal and canceling the appealed judicial act.
Guided by Articles 269, 271 of the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, the Fourteenth Arbitration Court of Appeal
p o st a n o v i l:
The decision of the Arbitration Court of the Novgorod Region dated October 9, 2014 in case No. A44-1939/2014 is left unchanged, the appeal of the limited liability company "Cetelem Bank" is not satisfied.
The decision can be appealed to the Arbitration Court Northwestern district within a period not exceeding two months from the date of its adoption.
Presiding | N.V. Murakhina |
N.N. Osokina |