The Supreme Court sided with the man in a dispute with the bank over an apartment: the Supreme Court departed from the 2025 conclusion

The presence of another residential real estate owned by the plaintiff in the temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine, in which he has neither the actual nor legal possibility to reside or exercise any other owner rights, indicates the absence of other housing within the meaning of the Law of Ukraine "On the Moratorium on the Seizure of Property of Ukrainian Citizens Provided as Security for Foreign Currency Loans".

The provisions of paragraph 5 of this Law should be interpreted as applying to all territories of Ukraine for which a legal regime of temporary occupation has been established by legislation.

What the dispute was about

The man took out a foreign currency loan back in 2008, secured by his apartment.

In 2020, a notary registered ownership rights to this apartment in favor of the bank.

The plaintiff considered this decision illegal because it was made during the moratorium on forced seizure of property. The apartment is his only place of residence, and the other property (a house) registered to him is located in Horlivka, Donetsk region, which is a temporarily occupied territory, so he cannot actually use it.

Judges' decision

The court of first instance, whose conclusions were agreed upon by the appellate court, partially satisfied the claim. The court's decisions were motivated by the fact that the contested decision of the state registrar was made in violation of the Law "On the Moratorium on the Seizure of Property of Ukrainian Citizens Provided as Security for Foreign Currency Loans."

The presence of a house in Horlivka does not refute the fact of the absence of other housing, since this settlement is temporarily occupied, and the owner is deprived of the opportunity to actually possess and use this property.

The Supreme Court's position

The Supreme Court, in the composition of the Grand Chamber of the Civil and Commercial Cases, agreed with the conclusions of the lower courts and noted that the provisions of paragraph 5 of the Law of Ukraine "On the Moratorium on the Seizure of Property of Ukrainian Citizens Provided as Security for Foreign Currency Loans" should be interpreted as applying to all territories of Ukraine for which the legal regime of temporary occupation was established by Ukrainian legislation, and therefore the rules established by this provision equally applied to property located in other temporarily occupied territories. Any other interpretation would contradict the purpose of the Law, the principle of the rule of law, and would lead to unjustified different legal status of persons who were in essentially the same conditions of loss of control over their real estate.

In this case, the courts established that the man's apartment is the subject of a mortgage securing a foreign currency consumer loan, with a total area of 70.00 sq. m, i.e., not exceeding 140 sq. m, and the disputed apartment is used by the plaintiff as his permanent residence. The plaintiff is also the owner of a house in the temporarily occupied territory.

Relevant amendments to the Law "On the Moratorium on the Seizure of Property of Ukrainian Citizens Provided as Security for Foreign Currency Loans" were made by the parliament by Law No. 2217-IX dated 21.04.2022. Article 1 of this Law in its current version establishes that certain territories of Ukraine, which are part of Donetsk and Luhansk regions, have been occupied by the Russian Federation (including the occupation administration of the Russian Federation) since 07.04.2014.

Thus, at the time of the contested decisions, Horlivka, Donetsk region, was defined by Ukrainian legislation as a temporarily occupied territory.

The Supreme Court in the composition of the Grand Chamber concluded that the lower courts made correct conclusions that the presence of ownership rights to housing located in the occupied zone, where the owner has no legal or actual possibility to exercise his powers, indicates the absence of other housing.

Thus, the contested decision of the state registrar was made in violation of the Law "On the Moratorium on the Seizure of Property of Ukrainian Citizens Provided as Security for Foreign Currency Loans," which was in force at the time of registration of ownership rights to the mortgage subject in favor of the bank, which is an independent and sufficient ground for its cancellation.

The Supreme Court also noted that it departed from its previous legal position set out in the ruling dated January 9, 2025, in case No. 522/18134/21.

More details can be found in the text of the Supreme Court ruling dated June 22, 2026, in case No. 755/21823/21 (proceeding No. 61-13727сво24).

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