Lack of grounds for disclosing banking secrecy does not prevent the opening of proceedings — Supreme Court

The court's establishment of the absence of grounds for the bank to disclose information containing banking secrecy and/or the applicant's authority to demand its disclosure is a basis for a decision to refuse the application (part 2 of article 350 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine), and not for refusal to open proceedings in the case. This conclusion was made by the Supreme Court in the composition of the panel of judges of the First Judicial Chamber of the Cassation Civil Court.

On May 6, 2026, the Cassation Civil Court of the Supreme Court considered, under simplified claim proceedings, the cassation appeal of a person in a case based on the application of a person, the interested party being a Joint Stock Company Commercial Bank, regarding the disclosure by the bank of information containing banking secrecy.

To substantiate the claimed demands, the applicant argued that they mistakenly transferred funds via an application to the card of an unknown person, and it is impossible to establish the full details of the recipient without disclosing banking secrecy. The bank refused to provide the information, citing the banking secrecy regime.

The court of first instance, whose conclusion was agreed upon by the appellate court, refused to open proceedings in the case, reasoning that the claims of the application are essentially a request for evidence for a future dispute, indicating the existence of a dispute over rights, which cannot be resolved in separate proceedings.

The Supreme Court disagreed with the courts' conclusions, annulled the judicial decisions, and remitted the case for further consideration to the court of first instance for the following reasons.

Cases concerning the disclosure by a bank of information containing banking secrecy are subject to consideration under the rules of separate proceedings in accordance with paragraph 11 of part 2 of article 293 and chapter 12 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine.

The court's establishment of the absence of grounds for disclosing banking secrecy or the absence of the applicant's legally provided authority to obtain it is a basis for refusal to satisfy the application on the merits, not for refusal to open proceedings in the case.

The court's conclusion about the existence of a dispute over rights as a basis for refusal to open proceedings in a case concerning the disclosure of banking secrecy is erroneous if the applicant does not make claims against the bank as an interested party and does not dispute the subjective right of another person, but only requests information within a special procedure.

An application for the disclosure of banking secrecy is not an application for securing evidence within the meaning of articles 116, 117 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine if its purpose is to establish the identity of the recipient of funds for further realization of the right to judicial protection, and not to secure the evidentiary base in an already existing dispute.

Thus, incorrect procedural qualification of the application and refusal to open proceedings in the case instead of considering the application on the merits is a significant violation of procedural law norms.

More details and the text of the Supreme Court ruling dated May 6, 2026, in case No. 757/40704/25 (proceeding No. 61-1508sv26) can be found at this link.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, our page on Facebook and on Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.