Judicial proceedings. Search for decisions of courts of general jurisdiction Cetelem Bank filed a lawsuit

13.09.2020

A44-1939/2014

FOURTEENTH ARBITRATION
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 composed of the presiding Murakhina H.The., judges Osokina H.GN and Pestereva O.Yu.
when maintaining the protocol 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 of the Novgorod Region dated October 09, 2014 in case No. А44-1939/2014 (Judge Larina I.G.),

u s t a n o v i l:

Limited Liability Company "Cetelem Bank" (TIN 6452010742, OGRN 1027739664260; location: 125040, Moscow, Pravdy Street, 26; hereinafter - the bank, LLC "Cetelem Bank") applied to the Arbitration Court of the Novgorod Region with an application to the Administration of the Federal services for supervision in the field of consumer rights protection and human well-being in the Novgorod region (TIN 5321101433, OGRN 1055300903833; location: 173015, Veliky Novgorod, Germana street, house 14; hereinafter referred to as management) 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 09, 2014 in case No. A44-1939/2014, the claims were denied.
The bank did not agree with the judicial act and filed an appeal, in which it asks to cancel the court decision. In support of the complaint, he points out that Order No. 49/ZPP dated 19.03.2014 is illegal, since standard forms of contracts for the provision of a targeted consumer loan for the purchase of a car vehicle, agreements on granting a loan for urgent needs, as well as the General Conditions for Issuing and Servicing 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 due to the entry into force of the Federal Law No. 353-FZ of December 21, 2013 "On Consumer Credit (Loan)" (hereinafter - Law No. 353-FZ, Law on Consumer Credit).
The Office did not respond to the appeal.
The persons participating in the case were duly notified of the time and place of the consideration of the appeal, no representatives were sent to the court, therefore the case was considered in their absence in accordance with Articles 123, 156, 266 of the Arbitration Procedure Code Russian Federation(hereinafter referred to as APC RF).
Having examined the evidence in the case, having checked the legality and validity of the court's decision, having examined the arguments of the complaint, the court of appeal finds no grounds for satisfying it.
As follows from the materials of the case, on the basis of Order No. 49 dated January 29, 2014, the department conducted a scheduled inspection of the activities of the Novgorod Representative Office of Cetelem Bank LLC in order to ensure consumer protection and compliance with mandatory requirements for goods (works, services), as a result of which an act was drawn up inspection dated 03/19/2014 No. 49, which reflects that Cetelem Bank LLC violated the requirements of the Law of the Russian Federation dated 02/07/1992 No. 2300-1 "On Protection of Consumer Rights" (hereinafter - Law No. consumers), expressed in the inclusion in the standard forms of agreements on the provision of a targeted consumer loan for the purchase of a motor vehicle, on the provision of a loan for urgent needs, in the General Conditions for Issuing and Servicing Credit Products of Cetelem Bank LLC, as well as in agreements with specific consumers of bank services , conditions that infringe on the rights of consumers, expressed in providing the bank with the opportunity to directly debit funds from the accounts of a client - an individual.
In connection with the identified violations, on March 19, 2014, the bank was issued order No. 49/ZPP to eliminate the identified violations by April 19, 2014, by excluding from the specified standard forms of contracts and the General Terms and Conditions for the Issuance and Servicing of Credit Products of Cetelem Bank LLC, those conditions, which infringe 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 report 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.
Disagreeing with the 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 on contesting non-normative legal acts, decisions and actions (inaction) of state bodies, local government bodies, other bodies, officials the arbitration court in a court session checks the disputed act or its separate provisions, disputed decisions and actions (omissions) and establishes their compliance with the law or other regulatory legal act, establishes the authority of the body or person that adopted the disputed act, decision or committed the disputed actions (inaction), and also establishes whether the disputed act, decision and actions (inaction) violate the rights and legitimate interests of the applicant in the field of entrepreneurial and other economic activities.
In accordance with Article 40 of the Consumer Rights Protection Law, state control and supervision over compliance with laws and other regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation regulating 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 bodies (their territorial bodies) exercising the functions of control and supervision in the field of consumer protection and safety of goods (works, services), in the manner determined by the Government of the Russian Federation.
Regulations on the Federal Service for Supervision of Consumer Rights Protection and Human Welfare, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 322 dated June 30, 2004, 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 the Federal Service for Supervision of Consumer Rights Protection and Human Welfare.
Paragraph 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 Exercise of State Control (Supervision) and Municipal Control" (hereinafter - Law No. 294-FZ) provides for the duty of officials of the body state control (supervision), the municipal control body that conducted the inspection, within the powers provided for by the legislation of the Russian Federation, issue an order to take measures to prevent harm to life, human health, harm to animals, plants, environment, state security, property of individuals and legal entities, state or municipal property, prevention of emergencies natural and man-made nature, as well as other measures provided for by federal laws.
Consequently, the challenged order was issued by the department within the limits of its authority.
According to Article 9 of the Federal Law of January 26, 1996 No. 15-FZ “On the Enactment of Part Two of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation”, paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the Consumer Rights Protection Law, relations with 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 Consumer Rights Protection Law, 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 recognized as 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 when 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 binding on 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 by the client (account holder), fulfill the client's instructions to transfer and issue the appropriate amounts from the account and conduct other operations on the account.
The bank may use the funds available on the account, guaranteeing the client's right to freely dispose of these funds (paragraph 2 of Article 845 of this Code).
By virtue of paragraph 3 of Article 845 of the said Code, the bank is not entitled to determine and control the directions of use of the client's funds and establish other restrictions not provided for by law or the bank account agreement, restrictions on its right to dispose of the funds at its own discretion.
In accordance with Article 854 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, funds are debited 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 on the account is not allowed, except for the seizure of the funds on the account or the suspension of operations on the account in cases provided for by law.
In accordance with clause 3.1 of Regulations of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation No. 54-P dated August 31, 1998 “On the procedure for providing (placement) by credit institutions of funds and their return (repayment)” (hereinafter - Regulation No. 54-P), the repayment (return) of funds placed by the bank funds and payment of interest on them is made by transferring funds from the accounts of borrower clients - individuals on the basis of their written instructions, transferring funds of borrower clients - individuals through communication agencies or other credit organizations, depositing cash by the latter into the cash desk of the creditor bank on the basis of a cash receipt order, as well as deductions from the amounts due for wages to borrower clients who are employees of the creditor bank (at their request 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 it is a payment order in the case of non-cash settlements, or a written order, transfer, cash deposit to the bank's cash desk - in other cases. Thus, Regulation No. 54-P also does not provide for the possibility of direct debiting by the bank of funds from the client's account.
The Board of Appeal rejects the bank's argument that the current legislation, in particular the Federal Law of June 27, 2011 No. 161-FZ "On the National Payment System" (hereinafter - Law No. 161-FZ) and the Regulation of the Bank of Russia "On the Rules for Transferring Funds » dated 06/19/2012 No. 383-P, it is possible to obtain a pre-given acceptance of the payer, since in this case it is provided for by the standard forms of contracts for the provision of a targeted consumer loan for the purchase of a motor vehicle, for the provision of a loan for urgent needs, General conditions for issuing and servicing credit products LLC "Cetelem Bank" the client's consent to write off funds from the account without additional acceptance does not fall under the signs of "a prior acceptance".
In addition, paragraph 2 of Article 854 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation provides that, without the client's order, debiting funds on the account is allowed 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 Regulation of the Bank of Russia "On the rules for the transfer of funds" dated 19.06.2012 No. 383-P, the payer's acceptance given in advance can be given in an agreement between the payer's bank and the payer and (or) in the form of a separate message or document, in including an application for a pre-given acceptance, drawn up by the payer in electronic form 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 present instructions to the payer's bank account, about the payer's obligation and the main contract, including number in the cases provided for federal law, indicating the possibility (impossibility) of partial execution of the order, as well as other information. In advance, this acceptance must be given before the presentation of the order of the recipient of funds. This acceptance may be given in advance in respect of one or more bank accounts of the payer, one or more recipients of funds, one or more instructions of the recipient of funds.
It follows from the foregoing that these terms and conditions of the contracts do not fall under the signs of “preliminary 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 present instructions to the payer’s bank account, about the payer’s obligation and the main contract, in including in cases stipulated 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 the acceptance was given in advance.
In accordance with Article 310 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, a unilateral refusal to fulfill an obligation and a unilateral change in its conditions are not allowed, except as otherwise provided 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 ahead of schedule at the request of the lender only in certain cases, which include the following:
in case of violation by the borrower of the period established for the return of the next loan amount, if the loan agreement provides for the return of the loan in installments (paragraph 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 return of the loan amount, if the security is lost or its conditions worsen due to circumstances for which the lender is not responsible (Article 813 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation);
in the event that the borrower fails to comply with the terms of the loan agreement on the intended use of the loan amount, in case of violation of the obligations 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 the requirements of the law, the lender is not entitled to demand early repayment of the loan. The specified condition of the contract infringes on the rights of consumers in connection with the expansion by the bank of the cases of early repayment of the loan listed in the law.
Thus, the inclusion in the standard forms of agreements on the provision of a targeted consumer loan for the purchase of a motor vehicle, on the provision of a loan for urgent needs, in the General Conditions for the Issuance and Servicing of Credit Products of Cetelem Bank LLC, 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 did not provide any evidence of non-compliance of the disputed order with the requirements of the legislation and violation of its rights and interests in the field of entrepreneurial activity by this non-normative legal act.
Consequently, there are no grounds for invalidating the challenged order.
In addition, the legality of the prescription is also confirmed by the decision of the Arbitration Court of the City of Moscow dated June 16, 2014 in case A40-56702 / 2014, which has come into force, which confirms the legality of bringing the bank to administrative responsibility for committing the above violations, as well as conducting an audit in respect of it .
In the appeal, the applicant points out that Order No. 49/ZPP dated March 19, 2014 is illegal, since the standard forms of the above disputed agreements, as well as the General Conditions for Issuing and Servicing Credit Products of Cetelem Bank LLC, in force at the time of its issuance, have become invalid and are not applied by the bank when concluding contracts in connection with the entry into force on 01.07.2014 of the Consumer Credit Law.
This argument is subject to rejection, since no evidence of non-use of the current disputable model agreements and the General Conditions for the Issuance and Servicing of Credit Products of Cetelem Bank LLC was presented in the case file. In addition, this circumstance could not affect the legality of the challenged order, since at the time of its issuance the violations indicated in it took place, which is confirmed by the case materials, in this regard, the order of 19.03.2014 No. 49 / ZPP is legal.
Under the above circumstances, the court of appeal found that the decision was made by the arbitration court of first instance with the full clarification of the circumstances of the case, no violations of substantive and procedural law were established, there were no grounds for satisfying the appeal and canceling the contested judicial act.
Guided by articles 269, 271 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the Fourteenth Arbitration Court of Appeal

p o s t a n o v i l:

The decision of the Arbitration Court of the Novgorod Region dated October 09, 2014 in case No. А44-1939/2014 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

NIZHNY NOVGOROD REGIONAL COURT

APPEALS DETERMINATION

Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Nizhny Novgorod Regional Court composed of:

presiding judge Kondakova T.A.,

judges Kochetkova M.The. and Kulaeva E.V.,

when maintaining the protocol of the court session by the secretary Ignatiev S.V.,

examined in open court the appeal Baykova Oh.A.

on the decision of the Soviet District Court g.N.Novgorod dated December 11, 2014 in the case on the claim of Baykova Oh.A. to LLC "Cetelem Bank" on the recognition of the terms of the contract as invalid, the recognition of the debt repaid, the obligations terminated, the recovery of compensation for moral damage, court costs, the recognition of the accrual of the fine as invalid,

After hearing the report of the judge of the Nizhny Novgorod Regional Court Kochetkova M.The., explanations of the representative Baykova Oh.A. by proxy Dovbush M.S., panel of judges

SET UP:

Baykova O.A. applied to the court with these requirements against Cetelem Bank LLC, indicating that<…>concluded an agreement with the defendant on the provision of a targeted consumer loan for the purchase of a motor 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 by the bank of debt 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 is contrary to the law - clause 2 of article 17, clause 1 of article 16 of the Law of the Russian Federation of February 7, 1992 No. 2300-1 “On Protection of Consumer Rights”, since the jurisdiction of disputes arising from contracts, one of the parties which is 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 invalidation. 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.<…>this notice was received by the bank. However, the respondent did not respond to this notice.<…>year, the plaintiff resubmitted said notice. Having not received a response to the repeated notification, the plaintiff<…>transferred to the bank on account of the early fulfillment of the obligation to repay the loan under the agreement dated<…>year cash in the amount<…>. Considering these actions of the defendant to be illegal, the plaintiff, taking into account the changed requirements, asked the court to recognize the conditions of clause 7.12 of the agreement on the provision of a targeted consumer loan for the purchase of a motor vehicle No.<…>from<…>year invalid (insignificant); recognize the repaid 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 obligations terminated, recognize the accrual of a fine in the amount of<…>rubles for non-submission for temporary storage of the Title for the car invalid; recover from Cetelem Bank LLC compensation for non-pecuniary damage in the amount of<…>rubles, court costs in the amount of<…>rubles.

In the trial court plaintiff Baikova Oh.A. and her representative by proxy Dovbush M.S. did not appear, the time and place of the hearing of the case were notified.

The representative of the defendant Ltd. «Setelem Bank» by proxy Kurmaev D.The. did not recognize the claims.

By the decision of the Soviet District Court g.N.Novgorod dated December 11, 2014, the claims of Baykova Oh.A. partially satisfied. Recognized invalid due to the nullity of the terms of clause 7.12 of the agreement on the provision of a targeted consumer loan for the purchase of a car No.<…>from<…>of the year.

Compensation for non-pecuniary damage in the amount of<…>rubles, a fine of<…> <…>rubles. A state fee in the amount of<…>rubles. The rest of the claims Baykova Oh.A. denied.

The appeal Baykova Oh.A. the question was raised about the cancellation of the court decision in the part in which she was denied satisfaction of the claims for recognition of the repaid debt to the bank, as taken in violation of the norms of substantive and procedural law.

In objections to the appeal, LLC “Cetelem Bank” asks the court decision to be left unchanged, the appeal is dismissed.

The legality of the decision of the court of first instance was verified by the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Nizhny Novgorod Regional Court in the manner prescribed by Chapter 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation.

By virtue of Part 1 of Article 327.1 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the Court of Appeal considers the case within the limits of the arguments set forth in the appeal.

Having checked the materials of the case, discussed the arguments of the appeal, objections to the complaint, having heard the explanations of the persons who appeared in the case, the panel of judges does not find 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.

<…>year between Baikova O.A. and Cetelem Bank LLC signed an agreement on the provision of 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 by the bank of debt under the agreement are subject to consideration in court at the location of the bank.

In accordance with Part 7 of Art. Claims for the protection of consumer rights may also be brought to 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 Protection of Consumer Rights”, claims for consumer protection can be brought to court at the location of the organization, place of residence or stay of the plaintiff, 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 an economically weak party in the contract, the legislator introduced additional mechanisms of legal protection, including the issue of determining the jurisdiction of civil cases with their participation.

The inclusion by the bank in the loan agreement of a provision on the jurisdiction of the dispute to a particular 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", 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 recognized as 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.

Resolving the stated requirements, the court of first instance, having assessed the circumstances established in the case in relation to the above provisions of the law, made the correct conclusion that the condition of the loan agreement, clause 7.12 of the contested loan agreement, is invalid by law.

The appeal does not contain any arguments contesting the said conclusions of the court of first instance.

It appears from the case file that<…>year, by registered mail with a notification and a description of the investment, the plaintiff sent a notice 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).

<…>the notice was received by the defendant.

However, the respondent did not respond to this notice.

<…>year, the plaintiff repeatedly sent the said notice to the bank.

Having not received a response to the repeated notification, the plaintiff<…>year transferred to the bank on account of the early fulfillment of the obligation to repay the loan in the amount of<…>.

It is 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 the 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 funds, since<…>year, the bank charged the plaintiff a fine for not providing a vehicle title in the amount of<…>rubles.

<…>year, the defendant canceled the payment of a fine for not providing a vehicle title in the amount of<…>rubles (case sheet 185), and<…>years on account of early execution Baikova Oh.A. obligations under the contract credited to her account the deposited funds.

Thus, at the time of the decision by the court, the loan agreement was executed by the parties in full, the obligations of the parties were terminated.

The court correctly stated that, since at the time of the decision, the said loan agreement was terminated by its execution, the 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 for the stated requirements and the subject of the dispute under consideration, the arguments of the appeal on the illegal use of funds and the accrual of interest for the period from<…>year on<…>years, do not entail the cancellation of the decision of the court of first instance, as unfounded.

Other arguments of the appeal, challenging the conclusions of the court on the merits of the dispute considered, also cannot affect the content of the court decision, the correctness of the court's determination of the rights and obligations of the parties in the framework of the disputed legal relationship, and do not indicate the existence of the provisions of Art. 330 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation grounds for the cancellation of the court decision.

The arguments contesting the conclusions of the court regarding the satisfaction of claims Baykova Oh.A. for the recovery in her favor of compensation for non-pecuniary damage and a fine, and requirements for the abolition of the decision in this part of the appeal does not contain.

Violations of the norms of substantive and procedural law that led or could lead to an incorrect resolution of this case (including those to which there are references in the appeal) were not allowed by the court.

Meanwhile, in the operative part of the decision it is not indicated that the recovery from LLC «Cetelem Bank» compensation for non-pecuniary damage, a fine and expenses for paying for the services of a representative is made in favor of Baykova Oh.A.

According to 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 decision of the court in this part is subject to clarification.

Based on the foregoing, guided by Articles 328, 329, 330 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Nizhny Novgorod Regional Court

DETERMINED:

the decision of the Soviet District Court g.N.Novgorod on December 11, 2014 to uphold, the appeal Baykova Oh.A. - without satisfaction.

Clarify the operative part of the decision of the Sovetsky District Court of Nizhny Novgorod dated December 11, 2014 instead of the words “To recover from Cetelem Bank LLC compensation for non-pecuniary damage in the amount of<…>rubles, a fine of<…>rubles, the costs of paying for the services of a representative in the amount of<…>rubles” indicate “To collect from LLC “Setelem Bank” in favor of Baykova Oh.A. compensation for non-pecuniary damage in the amount<…>rubles, a fine of<…>rubles, the costs of paying for the services of a representative in the amount of<…>rubles."

presiding judge.

DEFINITION

November 24, 2017 The Reutov City Court of the Moscow Region, composed of: the presiding judge Kornienko M.V., with the secretary of the court session Denisenko N.V., having considered in the preliminary court session the civil case on the statement of claim of LLC "Cetelem Bank" against Golosov Alexander Alexandrovich for the recovery of debt on a credit agreement and foreclosure on the subject of pledge,

INST A N O V&L:

In the proceedings of the Reutov City Court of the Moscow Region since DD.MM.YYYY, there is a civil case on the claim of LLC "Cetelem Bank" against Golosov Alexander Alexandrovich for the recovery of debt under a loan agreement and foreclosure on the subject of collateral. The claim is motivated by the fact that LLC "Cetelem Bank" and Golosov Alexander Alekseevich concluded an agreement on the provision of a targeted consumer loan for the purchase of a motor vehicle No.<данные изъяты>dated DD.MM.YYYY, according to which the Bank undertook to provide the defendant with a loan in the amount of - 920540.00 rubles for a period of 60 months with a fee for using the loan in the amount of 17.90 percent per annum of the loan amount, and the Respondent undertook to repay the loan on the terms and in the manner 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 of Legal Entities (Certificate dated DD.MM.YYYY, Ser. No. No.).

Purpose loan was granted to the Respondent for the purchase of a car<данные изъяты>identification number (VIN) No. and payment of the insurance premium under the Personal Accident Insurance Contract dated DD.MM.YYYY and payment of the insurance premium under the CASCO Insurance Contract dated DD.MM.YYYY

Ensuring the proper fulfillment of the terms of the said loan agreement between Cetel Bank LLC and the Respondent is a motor vehicle -<данные изъяты>identification number (VIN) no.

The provisions and essential terms of the agreement on the pledge of the vehicle are contained in the loan agreement No. No. dated DD.MM.YYYY, concluded between the Respondent and Cetel Bank LLC, clause 3 Loan security.

The Bank fulfilled its obligations under the Loan Agreement in full and provided the Respondent with a loan in full, as evidenced by the statement on account No.

According to the terms of the Loan Agreement, the client undertakes to repay the Bank the amount of the principal debt, pay commissions and interest for the use of the Loan for the entire time of using the funds in accordance with the terms of this Agreement no later than the date of the last payment on the loan Specified in the Payment Schedule by making monthly payments.

The defendant did not fulfill his obligations in a timely manner, which led to the formation of debt and grounds for going to court. The demand for repayment of the debt, sent by the plaintiff to the defendant in a pre-trial order, was not executed by the latter.

Based on the foregoing, 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.<данные изъяты>» identification number (V1N) No. by public sale. Set the initial sale price of the pledged property - a motor vehicle, a car of the brand "<данные изъяты>» identification number (VIN) № , in the amount of 4439000.00 rubles. recover from the defendant in favor of «Setelem Bank» Ltd. expenses for payment of state duty in the amount of 11476.06 RUB.

The representative of the plaintiff, having been notified of the time and day of the trial, did not appear in court.

The Court, after reviewing the materials of the case, 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, the arbitration court there is a previously initiated case on a dispute between the same parties, on the same subject and on the same grounds.

At the conclusion of the loan agreement, the obligatory requirement of the bank and the essential condition of the loan agreement was the obligation of the borrower to conclude an insurance agreement against car theft with the insurer specified by the bank - Insurance Company Investments and Finance JSC (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 a pledge (clause 10). The defendant paid an insurance premium to JSC IC Investments and Finances. DD.MM.YYYY, an insured event occurred - a corner of the car, about which the borrower notified in writing in a timely manner law enforcement and bank DD.MM.YYYY

From the submitted documents, it is seen that since DD.MM.YYYY, the Moscow Arbitration Court has filed a case on the application of Cetelem Bank LLC to Investments and Finance Insurance Company JSC for inclusion in the register of creditors' claims of the debtor under loan agreement No. No. dated 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 Alexandrovich Golosov for the recovery of debt under the loan agreement and foreclosure of the collateral.

A private complaint may be filed against the ruling with the Moscow Regional Court through the Reutov City Court within 15 days.

<данные изъяты>

Legal advice:

1. I took a car loan from Setelem Bank, wrote an application for refusal of life insurance at Sberbank on March 24th. How do I know if my insurance has been cancelled?

1.1. Easy: call the Security Council and ask.
Good luck.